Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Politics

  • IntelligentVote.com

    I like the idea behind this site. You can check off your choices on a number of key bills, and then it will compare those to the votes of your senators and congressman. You will need to either have followed certain issues fairly closely, or you may need to look up specifics of a particular vote that they use. I was fairly impressed with the selection.

    Now it would be good to have a site where candidates checked off a similar list and then you could compare how your representatitve did vote compared to how a candidate says he would have. Of course, the political operatives who package candidates won’t let their clients do this sort of thing, but perhaps it’s time for a voter revolt–you don’t give us information, we won’t give you our vote!

    Check it out.

  • Independent Voters are Concerned

    The Washington Post has an article headlined Independent Voters Favor Democrats by 2 to 1 in Poll, but in the article I found this paragraph:

    Independent voters may strongly favor Democrats, but their vote appears motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than by enthusiasm for the opposition party. About half of those independents who said they plan to vote Democratic in their district said they are doing so primarily to vote against the Republican candidate rather than to affirmatively support the Democratic candidate. Just 22 percent of independents voting for Democrats are doing so “very enthusiastically.”

    That paragraph tells me that many other independent voters are feeling like I do. We’re not happy with the Republican Party, but we’re not all that excited about the Democrats either. Part of the problem is that both parties have become embroiled in packaging and media blitz but don’t really let any substance get out to the voters. I understand that there are many voters out there who can be manipulated by this stuff, but there are also other voters who would like some actual information about the candidates. And we would also like you to have some idea of what you’re going to do.

    Let me speak just for myself now. You see, I have many concerns. I think the Iraq war was a strategic mistake that has been compounded by a number of tactical mistakes. (I’ve blogged on that in the past and will do so again in the future.) But I don’t see where the Democrats have a plan either to deal with the aftermath of that war, or with the war in terror in general. They’re going to do things differently than the Republicans, which is good, but what are they going to do? More diplomacy is good, but I’d like to know where Democrats will draw a line. What could happen internationally that could cause you to go to war? How much force would you use?

    I have concerns about education, but other than believing that budgets are low, what are the Democrats going to spend my money on in educational budgets? I’m actually willing to pay more taxes for education, but I want to know that the money will actually be improving education. I have concerns about social welfare programs. I actually don’t mind having some of my taxes go to safety net programs, but I do want to know that the money is actually solving problems rather than creating more, and right now I’m afraid I’m not convinced that the safety net money is being used wisely.

    I could go on and on. But instead of answers to these questions I get more criticism of the Republicans. I already got that. I know what I don’t like. But for anyone running against an incumbent, I want to know specifically what you’re going to do better.

    And as for the media, you can start by not using words such as “favor” in a headline when what is actually going on is that independents are turning away from Republican candidates, many of whom they voted for with their nose held, and turning to Democrats while still keeping their nose held because there are so few alternatives.

    The Democrats aren’t doing well; they’re just there at the right moment when the Republicans have run a number of bad plays.

  • Philophronos Blogroll

    Laura has posted some code to help add this important new blogroll to your site. Just head down to the bottom of that post to copy and paste. This blogroll is not just about this election. We wanted it to appear before this election, but we’ll be going straight into presidential issues leading up to 2008, and there will always be political blogging.

    I understand the need for blogrolls with scrollbars, because even with two sidebars, things get busy, and it’s hard to post everything. But the blogosphere is about communicating and exchanging ideas, and this is the sort of thing that can help.

    If the bloggers on this philophronos blogroll will post in accordance with the guidelines, not only will there be more dialogue, there is some hope that we can educate ourselves and some other voters about the candidate positions on issues.

    Let’s help make the next election more about issues and less about mudslinging, personalities, and media packaging.

  • Prepare, then Vote!

    Since the Foley scandal broke I’ve read and heard a number of commentators talk about the danger of evangelical Christians staying home on election day. The suggestion is that especially the conservative “family values” voters will be so put off by the Foley scandal and the apparent lack of action by the leadership to deal with it effectively that they will stay home. I don’t know how true this is, but I’ve heard a few supporting comments myself from individuals.

    Now there are those who will think I should rejoice. After all, the groups of voters involved will probably vote differently than I do (I’m a mainline, moderate Christian), and thus “my” candidates will have an improved chance if they stay home.

    Here’s my view. I think that our republic is impoverished when a category of voters decides to bow out of participation. This doesn’t mean I won’t debate the same group and fight them at every turn. But I believe having all of us there for the debate and having all of us participate in choosing our representatives gives us a stake in the process and helps to prevent a fracturing of society. Serious debate provided by opponents with strong convictions tests ideas. We are seeing less and less debate, because the candidates are presented to us in a canned fashion, the media has bought into the process and presents staged events and quotes and themes of the day, and we as the public have accepted that. But if we also allow scandals, a fear of defeat, or apathy to keep us home from the polls, we are simply asking for more of the same.

    The Foley scandal is very bad. I’m glad he resigned and if he can be prosecuted, I hope he will be. In addition, anyone who was involved in covering up in any way should pay for that action. Covering up that sort of activity is unacceptable. But to decide as a result that everyone on that one side of the aisle, or everyone in politics is so depraved we should not even be involved is a serious lapse of judgment on our part, and we the people will pay the price.

    I would say to anyone who feels that they should just stay home: Think again! Your moral responsibility stays the same. You still have the opportunity to get out and study the candidates, do the best you can to evaluate, and cast your vote in the best way you know how. You have that one little piece of leverage, that one little piece of power, and if you fail to use it, you’ve abdicated your own moral responsibility.

    So I urge not only those who will vote like me, but those who will vote against my choices to get out and vote!

    I’m not saying that you or I will make the correct choice. I’m saying that we must make the best choice of which we are capable. We are given that power, and the failure so much of the electorate to take advantage of it is nothing short of scandalous in itself.

    What if “both” candidates are unacceptable? Well, there are a few options.

    First, the focus on the top of the ticket, presidential candidates or senate and congress, is an error in itself. Important issues for your life are being decided in local elections, often by 20% or 30% of the voters. There will be local and state candidates along with local and state issues. It will be quite rare that anyone has a ballot including only a congressman and a senator. So get educated about your local candidates and issues. On my local ballot in there primary there were school board candidates. Those are extremely important. (My district was decided in the primary, but there are contested races in the county.)

    Second, if you still find no candidate that you can stomach, you have the option of minor party and/or write-in candidates. What is the point of voting for a minor party or write-in candidate? Well, there is one major advantage–they aren’t that likely to get elected, and if they do, they’ll be a voice crying in the wilderness. So you can use your vote to nudge the major parties in a direction you’d like them to move. I often vote Libertarian for that very reason. If I have decided that neither major party candidate deserves my vote, and that neither requires a “vote against,” then I feel free to nudge the process in the direction of liberty. But there are conservative and liberal parties involved here as well. So you don’t have to leave those top slots blank while you vote for various candidates for local office.

    Third, if you are a responsible person in your daily life–and I’ll assume you are–yet you have been irresponsible in voting by staying home, use the trip to the voting booth as a lesson. As you look through the candidates and say, “Why should I vote for these people?” consider the possibility that you should be a candidate for local office, or that someone you know deserves your active support in the next election. Perhaps you have a friend you believe should be urged to be in the political arena.

    It’s a participatory form of government. We participate by choosing representatives. When those representatives fail, we have the task of replacing them. Let’s take up our responsibility!

  • Looking for Moral High Ground

    I’ve been watching the Foley scandal in congress, though not as closely as I might. While Foley represented a portion of Florida, that portion is a long ways from the panhandle where I live. Our congressional race isn’t even close. At the same time moral standards are extremely important to me. I will tend to favor a candidate who disagrees with me even on significant issues, provided I believe that candidate has integrity and his oppponent does not. (I’m referencing two news stories for this, Ethics panel launches probe into Foley case and Poll: Voters say scandal will affect vote.)

    In the present scandal and in several previous ones, both parties have tended to behave hypocritically. When the person who has fallen is a member of one’s own party, salvaging one’s political career takes precedence, and one tends to advocate forgiveness. When the offender is a member of the other party, the important issue is upholding moral standards, and maximum exposure of the bad behavior and appropriate punishment is the key.

    Now of course those extremes don’t generally occur all that clearly, though I think political operatives sound pretty much like that. When it was Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Democrats were busy defending the president, while Republicans went as far as impeachment, not to mention a long and expensive investigation. Now I will note that often by “defending” I mean indirectly, such as by redirecting the subject to inappropriate tactics used by those who are investigating or reporting. In my view Bill Clinton’s behavior should have been regarded as sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual behavior, though I didn’t see anything impeachable in it. Democrats who would normally be very sensitive about sexual harassment were rather forgiving of a popular president of their own party. Republicans made some loose morals and inappropriate behavior into a crime.

    Now we have ex-Congressman Foley. His behavior is worse in that it occurs with underage persons, though on the other hand he hasn’t carried it through so far. What is the appropriate response? As soon as anyone found out about those e-mails, the appropriate authority should have taken action. If Speaker Hastert didn’t know earlier, he should have known, because he should have been informed. I am not going to join calls for him to resign simply because I don’t yet know what he knew and when. I could probably sift through the material and get a better idea than I have, but I’ll leave that for later. If he was not informed until last week, he needs to check into the process that allowed things to go that far before he was informed.

    Republicans generally, however, seem to be less angry about this one than about prior failings by Democrats. Demoncrats seem to be more angry, and I see both as hypocritical. We, as voters need to hold our politicians to a higher standard, and do so across the board. We should not tolerate the behavior of a congressman who approaches congressional pages through e-mail, through IMs, or in person. We should not tolerate anyone in power who does not take swift and efficient action. Which party might gain or lose should not be part of our reasoning.

    Today I received my “Breaking Christian News” e-mail, and in there Gary Bauer, of American Values is quote as saying:

    “Hopefully, no Christian voter is under the illusion that the Democratic Party is full of sinners and the Republican Party is full of saints,” he says. “Both parties are full of sinners. Our faith teaches us that it’s a fallen world.”

    He goes on to hope that this action of one congressman won’t impact the overall Christian voter turnout.

    Now Bauer’s quote is something I would imagine that practically every Christian can agree with. We all, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and members of minor parties are sinners. We are imperfect. The problem is that pointing it out right now certainly appears to be a political ploy. The hope is to save the Republican majority in the house, and for that to occur it’s important that Christian conservative voters are not turned off by Republican misbehavior. I actually agree that this issue should be taken out only on those actually responsible–the one who committed these acts and anyone involved in covering them up. Right now people believe (see the article referenced at the beginning of this post) that the Democrats are better able to restore moral standards, but that’s simply because the latest wrongdoing was by a Republican. If this had happened to a Democrat, people would tilt the other way. After a few weeks, the impact of this one event will fade, and the numbers will balance out. It’s unfortunate that people are so swayed by emotion and so unsteady in their decisions. (Note that at one point 80% approved of the war in Iraq, now more than 60% oppose it. That leaves 40% who somehow changed their minds. I know people say that the facts changed, but I don’t think there was any reason to expect things to go much better than they have.)

    “Everyone is a sinner” is one of those good Christian phrases that can be used two ways. First, it can help us be more forgiving. That is good, though not unequivocally good. Second, it can be used to destroy moral standards. We need to be forgiving, but we don’t need to elevate those without high standards into positions of public trust. In the church, we need to be forgiving, but we don’t need to lower our moral goals.

    This morning in my devotions I was reading Acts 3 & 4. I’m writing a devotional on it for my wife’s devotional list, because it hit me over the head, spiritually speaking, when I thought about the lame man waiting and begging at the gate of the temple. He’s outside, just separated from the blessing. I thought, “How many people are there waiting at the gate of our churches, but for some reason unable to come in and be blessed?”

    Then I also read Acts 3:26: “When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways” [Emphasis mine]. God hasn’t called us to forgive because we’re all wallowing together in a pit of sin and despair. He calls us to forgive as part of healing, as part of becoming holy. God doesn’t just call sinners, he calls sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32).

    And that’s another one of those hard sayings. It looks pretty nice to see God calling sinners, weak people, failures, and losers. Jesus gives them a place. But he doesn’t just call them. He calls them to change. For those of us inside the church he doesn’t just ask us not to judge. He asks us both to have high standards and not to judge. It’s easy not to judge when you have no standards. Judge what? But as usual Jesus doesn’t let us by with the easy path. Love one another isn’t good enough. Jesus asks us to love one another as he has loved us. Oops! That love involved a cross! It’s not so easy now! Likewise “don’t judge” comes only a chapter after we are told to love our enemies, and then asked to “be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Now I’ve heard lots of ways to blunt that command, but none of them quite manages to make it easy.

    We’re all sinners, yes, no matter what party. But that’s never an excuse for remaining that way. God’s call is to higher moral ground. He’s offering grace. He’s offering the blessing of turning us from our sins. But he’s not accepting excuses.

  • Understanding and Acting

    There are many on the right who complain whenever someone tries to understand evildoers, or to explain the reason for their actions. They assume, not always incorrectly, that the person who is explaining also intends to excuse, that finding a reason, other than that certain people are evil, must remove any justification for reprisal or punishment.

    On the other hand, there are those who justify just such an attitude by believing that somehow an explanation is also a solution. A murderer comes before the court, and either in the trial of the facts or during the sentencing phase provides an explanation, perhaps a very difficult childhood with abuse, or deprivation as an adult. The jury or the judge is supposed to accept the explanation as, in some sense, a solution.

    Now those on either side can accuse me of expressing the extreme views here. Conservatives are not opposed to explanations in principle, nor are liberals satisfied with only an explanation. But it often appears that way. What are we to do with the murderer who was mistreated by his parents or guardians? Perhaps his plight can arouse our sympathy, but does it allow us to increase the threat to others? An explanation, to be valuable in this case, needs to lead us to a course of action that is effective, and better than existing options.

    What about terrorism? I think I do understand, to some extent, the reasons why terrorists become terrorists. It is not simply that they were born evil and wanted to kill lots of people. They and their people have real problems to solve. But that’s only part of the explanation. They also have goals that are incompatible with ours. Muslim extremists, for example, are frustrated by the success of our lifestyle, which to them is morally bankrupt and should fail. There is a great deal of anger that can result when your high moral values don’t produce their equivalent in material resources.

    Timothy McVeigh was frustrated because the American people repeatedly didn’t vote for the type of policies he wanted. He saw–correctly I might note–that his vision for America would never come about in the normal course of events. So he blew up a building. An additional cause here, I believe, was that he really wasn’t all that smart. So there’s an explanation. That explanation, however, leads up to one point, the point at which hundreds of people had to pay with their lives for McVeigh’s frustration. Does the explanation help us deal with the action? Not that much.

    Now we have some people who are annoyed whenever anyone suggests that terrorists might have reasons for what they do. Of course they have reasons. Some of them are even good reasons–to do something, not to blow people up. And why are we the target? Because we’re the largest roadblock to their plans. I don’t want to minimize the provocation of bad behavior as a nation. An inconsistent foreign policy encourages others to believe they can get by with treating Americans badly. An arrogant attitude on our part makes Americans unpopular in some places. But most people respond by overcharging American tourists or saying nasty things.

    The problem with terrorism by Muslim extremists is that part of the explanation for their anger with us is simply who we are. They don’t want us to exist. They don’t like our freedom and what appears to them as our decadence. They do want a world that is dominated by their particular view of Islam. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been mistreated, but it’s not just by the United States. The UK and France had a good part in creating the current mess as well. But we are the ones in the center of the target because we are the biggest roadblock.

    Recognizing both legitimate and illegitimate grievances should not be either our license to give up on the grounds that we really have been the bad guys many times in our past, nor should it be our excuse to hate indiscriminately. It should be the occasion for us to defend ourselves appropriately and in a reasoned manner, and at the same time for us to correct those elements of our behavior (inconsistency and arrogance come to mind) that are legitimate grievances. It is naive to assume, however, that because we correct legitimate offenses, that suddenly peace and friendship will break out.

    What understanding does give us is an opportunity to decide how to act without the level of hatred and anger, to use a measured response (not a weak response) to produce just the result we want.

    Explanations provide the pattern for effective action, not the excuse for inaction.

  • Ben Witherington on the Pope’s Speech

    While I have reflected largely on the single item in the Pope’s speech and the Muslim reaction, Ben Witherington has posted an analysis of the larger content of the speech. He underlines some things that I would want to debate in the speech as well.

    A key item from my point of view here is that Christianity is also dealing with the relationship between faith and reason and the question of when, if ever, violence is justified. I don’t think the Pope lives completely in a glass house, but there are plenty of large glass windows in modern Catholic theology through which one might throw a stone or two. But the discussion should be good.

    For Muslims not to welcome such an opportunity tends to demonstrate the Pope’s point, at least in perception. Moderate Muslims should point out the common areas of reform, and suggest that both Islam and Christianity need to clean up their houses. That could spark a useful dialogue.

  • Fareed Zakaria on Oil

    Fareed Zakaria has an excellent Newsweek article on oil, The Real Story of Pricey Oil. In it he suggests that we need to get serious about reducing and stabilizing demand, and about developing new technology. He discusses the politics of oil production in a clear and straightforward fashion.

    This is something to which we need to pay serious attention. The actual price of our consumption is much higher than what is evident at the gas pump.

    Zakaria concludes:

    If the president and Congress were to propose a powerful package of measures

  • Criticizing Religions

    I have long been an advocate of permitting criticism of Christianity, because I think allowing such criticism is good for my religion. I have friends who would regard my religion as a delusion, and I encourage them to speak directly about what they believe. This is not a matter of commitment to legal free speech, though I do believe that the first amendment should be protected. That is an area in which I might even be regarded as extreme. I say this from inside the Christian faith. If we try to use legal or forceful means to blunt or eliminate criticism, we will be the poorer for it, intellectually and spiritually.

    Now we have the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI. I already commented briefly on those, noting that I’m not too much of a fan of the pope, but nonetheless I did not off hand see anything wrong with his remarks that would justify the kind of reaction they are receiving. Despite the Pope’s apology I have not changed my view.

    In an article I read yesterday, but from the September 25 issue of Newsweek, Jon Meacham said:

    Much of the Regensburg address was a meditation on faith and reason, the roots of religiously inspired violence and the need for believers to see God as a figure of love. Roughly put, his argument was this: to Benedict, Islam’s conception of God so stresses God’s will that God can be understood to command the irrational.

    The problem is with a quotation from Emperor Manuel II. As is usual, many people have brought up the crusades at this point. But one should consider the fact that Emperor Manuel’s situation was one of being invaded by Muslim conquerors. I deplore the religious justification of violence other than as self-defense, yet this emperor was defending himself. Again, I’m not an apologist for the crusades, but one must remember that Christian territories were being conquered by Muslim conquerors. I’m not an expert on the history of that period, but I am certain there were various justifications from both sides.

    The Christian actions in the crusades should not mean that we can no longer have dialogue. True dialogue is also impossible when one cannot criticize.

    Again, quoting from Meacham’s article:

    Then why did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation

  • McCain and Conscience

    I have liked John McCain for a long time, and now he has taken a stand on torture and interrogation. Chip Read on MSNBC’s first read comments on this as a matter of conscience. I’m amazed, despite everything that has already happend in the war on terror, that this is entirely an issue. I’m deeply disturbed that leaders in the administration have taken the stand that they have.

    From the moral point of view this should be a no brainer. From the point of view of international politics, it should be a no brainer. I served as aircrew in the Air Force. Aircrew always face the possibility that they will be shot down and captured by the enemy. Don’t imagine me being wondrously heroic or anything. I didn’t feel threatened. But when your job is one in which you could get into that position you do give it a little thought.

    One of the few bright spots in that horror we call war is the Geneva Convention. It’s more honored in the breach than otherwise, but it’s still a bright spot. We shouldn’t play with that. It’s wrong morally, and it’s dangerous politically. This is a place we need to listen to the international community and play good citizen on the world scene. When Christians support this sort of thing I truly have to wonder whether they’ve even passed the idea somewhere near their Christian principles.

    There are times when we need to challenge the international community. When other countries supply money to terrorists, or make it easy for them to transfer it, that is a reason to take some sort of action. They’re aiding and abetting criminals.

    But when they ask us not to torture, that’s a request for us to live up to our principles. True, many of these same countries will engage in torture. But if we don’t live up to a higher standard ourselves, we may come to the next stage–or the next–of this war on terror and find out that we have come more and more to resemble our opponents.

    That’s too high a price to pay.