Newsweek story here. I wish I was surprised at such racism, but I’m not. In many places it’s just below the surface. (HT: Pursuing Holiness.)
Tag: Politics
-
Campaign Finance, Enforceability, and Free Speech
It has become fairly well established in current law, as I understand it, that election financing can be regulated quite substantially without violating free speech. Some of the boundary areas are not so well defined, and regulation of those who are not connected organizationally to any candidate has been held unconstitutional in at least some cases.
Recently, a liberal blogger filed a complaint against Fred Thompson for conducting activities that were inappropriate for an undeclared candidate. (HT: First Read [MSNBC].)
Now I’m not a supporter of Fred Thompson for president. I think it is vanishingly unlikely that I will vote for him. Nonetheless, I think that campaign finance reform is an area where we have taken a situation that was problematic, and made it much worse through legislation. Having politicians bought and paid for by various special interests, whether they are corporations, unions, or large special interest organizations is something that should concern us all.
That, and reducing the cost of elections, is the impetus behind campaign finance reform. We are told that if we keep individual contributions small and limit total expenditure, we will somehow make elections better. Well, it hasn’t happened. What we now have is a kind of game between the politicians to see who can get the biggest boost not allowed to his opponent from the existing laws. And those laws are not very clear, precise, or logical. What exactly is the difference between testing the waters and campaigning, anyhow? Sure the law tries to give criteria, but frankly those criteria look to me like an invitation to lengthy debate and possibly litigation, which is, in fact, what has happened in many cases.
I doubt that any amount of campaign finance reform is going to work, short of the voters deciding to hold politicians accountable for what they say and what they do. I know, I’ve said that about just about everything that we try to do about politicians. But it seems to me that there is nothing that could not be resolved through responsible voting, and at the same time there is no solution to corruption in elections if we do not have responsible voting citizens. All we have done through campaign finance reform and term limits is spread the corruption around and put different labels on it.
There are those who are saying simply that this is the law, and Fred Thompson ought to obey it. But is Fred Thompson truly testing the waters, or is he a real candidate? A great deal of the accusations against him stem from his collecting too much money–something that indicates popularity, and his position near the lead. But he has not, in fact, done all those things the other candidates have, and I don’t think we can make assumptions about the result.
Do we generally care if it’s just the law? I’m guessing that some of the folks who think that the election laws are “just the law” and we should live with them don’t take the same approach to immigration. There the laws are broken and need to be fixed, and we shouldn’t criminalize the people who are living within them. Now you may think these are unfair comparisons, but I have a specific point on which I think they are parallel. We each have some area of the law which we think is so messed up that even honest people doing their best to live lawfully find themselves entangled.
When a law results in otherwise honest people becoming lawbreakers, we should at least reexamine it to see if it’s doing what it should be doing. I think this has happened in the case of immigration. There are areas where workers are unavailable legally, and so people have gotten calloused about hiring them illegally. At a certain point enforcement, while attractive, is unlikely to be successful within a reasonable expenditure of resources. Reform of the law is necessary, and one of the aims of reform must be enforceability.
Similarly I think our election laws have gotten way off course. We are now entrusting a government that can’t be trusted to count ballots properly with monitoring finances and keeping them honest. I think that too much of the energy of a campaign now goes into satisfying legal proprieties. At the same time there are interesting loopholes. A person can spend as much of his own money as he desires, creating an opening favoring incredibly rich candidates.
Perhaps disclosure should be the law, thus allowing the voters to see where a candidate is getting his money. But without responsible voters–the ultimate enforcement in this case–that isn’t going to do much good.
I would say finally that the line between actually campaigning for office, political commentary, and political advocacy is a dangerous one. Personally, despite what the courts have ruled, I think we took a dangerous step when we first regulated speech even in elections. But when we step even further over that line, it becomes even more dangerous. Even though some of the nastiest material in an election comes from third parties, often folks we can’t be sure are unconnected to a candidate, I think that speech must be protected. Again, responsible reading and listening is the key.
-
More Efficient Bureaucracy?
I’m shocked! It appears that the expense and displacement caused by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security has not resolved inter-agency turf wars. Well, not so much shocked, actually. According to The Aviation Nation, ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) has been avoiding working with the FBI on terrorism cases.
This points to a need for voters to beware. Politicians like to choose play multiple choice when dealing with a problem: a) Create an agency or commission with the right name, b) Draft a bill with a title that promises to fix it, c) Allocate some money, irrespective of whether that money will solve the problem or e) deny the problem and hope it goes away.
If any of us are feeling confident of our ability to respond to a major natural disaster, we should consider Hurricane Katrina, a predictable disaster, at least for a couple of days in advance, to which we were nonetheless not prepared to respond. Imagine a sudden terrorist attack coming now. Would our bureaucracy pull together and work and play well as one team?
I suspect we’d have plenty of heroic action in the field, and plenty of bureaucrats who had essentially no impact on the situation trying to sort out blame and credit afterwards.
-
Moderates Snubbed
According to this story on MSNBC.com democratic presidential contenders are snubbing the DLC meeting in Tennessee this weekend. It’s a trend that I find annoying, though I do expect candidates to talk to the base of their parties during the campaign.
I’m wondering this: Is the base of the democratic party so partisan that it would actually harm a candidate to attend a moderate event?
-
Rules for Church Leaders on Politics
. . . or perhaps not.
Joe Carter at evangelical outpost links to and critiques some rules for church leaders regarding political activities and involvement.
I’m pretty much in agreement with Carter’s critique. I am a supporter of church and state, but even my view on church and state is informed by my faith. I cannot separate who I am when I go vote and who I am as a person of faith. It just doesn’t work.
I believe in separation of church and state, sometimes even greater than that enforced by the state, but I mean the separation of the church as an institution from the structures of state power, using the sword of the state to encourage or enforce the dictates of religion. I don’t believe in the separation of the church and the statesman. I couldn’t do it. I don’t expect the people I vote for to do it.
The suggested rules go beyond the requirements of law, and I fail to see what ethical views drive them, except perhaps a desire to keep the religious right less involved in politics–a goal I don’t know that the author of the rules, Dr. David Gushee, even accepts. So I’m a bit at a loss.
As a leader of a parachurch organization myself, albeit a volunteer leader of an organization that has no paid staff (including me), I watch this sort of thing with interest. I would not endorse a candidate as officially as the head of that organization. To do so would be illegal as well as inappropriate ethically. As an individual, I can still do so. That would be a violation of rule #12.
Rule #17, regarding separation of church and state sounds good to me for me, but I am well aware of many people who would disagree. Why should I be free to model my view, while they can’t model theirs?
I’m troubled by the fact that religious people cannot express any view desired, but I would also be troubled should churches be allowed to use tax exemption as a way to get involved in politics without the costs others must pay. Thus legally I have to agree that churches, as such, shouldn’t perform most of these activities. But their leaders, as individuals, and through other means, should not be ethically barred from such involvement.
-
Jena 6 Overview at Pursuing Holiness
OK, I’m generally pretty slow in getting on these political cases, and this is no exception. But Laura is right about this case and the need to get something done. I suspect the online position will not be useful either, but perhaps some mail to the appropriate government officials will help.
Public opinion, properly applied, helps keep government officials accountable.
-
Christian Politicians aren’t Perfect, Just Forgive Them
Update: Please read through to the comments. Both Jeremy Pierce and Joe Carter believe I have misread them, though Joe graciously took responsibility for lack of clarity. If I am now reading him correctly, I agree with his points as made in that comment.
One day back when I was a junior NCO in the Air Force, a junior officer (2nd Lieutenant) came by my work area to correct me on an issue. There were perhaps a dozen people gathered around, all aircrew members. He wanted to know why I had said in a meeting that I would reflect even one instance of tardiness for a flight in a supervisee’s performance report. At the time we used a nine point system, and I said I would reduce the appropriate score by at least one for that instance.
His point was that nobody was perfect, and I was expecting young airmen to be perfect. Since he came to me in front of a number of people I simply pointed to them and said, “None of these people have been late for a flight during the last year. There are some of them who have never been late for a flight in their career–longer than mine. I have never been late for a flight. A nine indicates someone is as good as it gets in that area.”
“Nobody’s perfect” is one of the best excuses for bad behavior known to humanity. “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven,” while true, is one of the best excuses for bad behavior known to Christians. It drives me crazy, because it is normally used in circumstances in which nobody is expecting anyone to be perfect, and in defense for activities that are substantially less than perfect.
Niow the message seems to be “Christian politicians aren’t perfect, just forgive them.” Well, personally, I would suggest in many cases that they need to be forgiven back home, once they are out of the public sector.
I had been laying off of the David Vitter story, largely because I think we get a bit too tangled in these things, but also because I think the proper people to deal with the issue are the voters of Louisiana. What he has done is now out there for people to evaluate, and they should do so. I felt the same way about Clinton, though I thought his lying about it under investigation was not only immoral an illegal, but dreadfully stupid. But I have expressed my annoyance with investigations that don’t manage to prosecute for any offense related to the one they were investigating, but get someone for obstruction or lying to investigators.
But here we have someone who preaches a high standard in sexual morality, does so vocally and regularly, and has commented on the behavior of others. I saw one conservative Christian blogger who did a very good job on this, Laura at Pursuing Holiness. She clearly understands that one may not be perfect, but that there are standards.
But two other Christian conservative bloggers I regularly read and generally respect, seem to be off in “Christians aren’t perfect” land. Jeremy, at Parableman is playing word games with hypocrisy, while Joe Carter at the evangelical outpost said:
But this sets an unreasonable standard for politicians. The higher the person’s standards, the more likely they are to miss the mark. As Gary Bauer said when asked to comment on the Vitter scandal, “If a voter is looking for Jesus on the Republican ticket, they’re not going to find him. There was only one perfect man, and all others have fallen short. They should look at how a candidate dealt with his moral failures.”
Listen folks, I’m not looking for Jesus on the Republican or Democratic ticket. Somehow I feel he’d want a third party assuming he didn’t just move to another country. What I do want is politicians with integrity. Larry Flynt making comments provides you with some nice rhetoric to hide behind, but come on! Larry Flynt isn’t a standard for us as Christians. He isn’t even a reasonable standard for ordinary whore mongers.
Just as there were a dozen guys around me on that rating who hadn’t been late for a light, so there are, I’m certain, men in Louisiana–I won’t venture how many–who actually uphold their vows of matrimony. I bet there are even Christian guys who are not perfect and have committed adultery, who dealt with it immediately and openly.
I’m not saying in Vitter’s case that he should resign or be prosecuted. I don’t know precisely where he stands legally. If I were a voter in Louisiana, I can’t absolutely say that this would prevent me voting for him, were I willing to vote for him on other grounds. But it would certainly drop him way down my list under the heading of integrity. I would hope that there would be a better alternative next time around. I’d have to say, “Sorry, you had your chance, but we need leaders with integrity who don’t have to get caught before they own up.”
Instead of making excuses, and making lame remarks about not finding Jesus on the Republican ticket, we should, as Christians, decry someone not living up to their words.
And as far as hypocrisy is concerned vs. inconsistency, I would suggest that “white washed tomb” covers it all quite well. It looks good on the outside, but on the inside–not so much.
Now Sen. Vitter does have one thing in his favor: He confessed when he was actually caught. The problem is, however, the very same thing is his major problem. He confessed after he got caught. At least he isn’t so abysmally stupid that he would think he can continue to deny all this and get away with it.
I’m strongly in favor of letting most of these issues be decided by voters. At the same time, I’m appalled at the number of Christians who normally uphold strong values who suddenly find cracks in the moral system when a favored politician falls.
-
Hindu Prayer in the Senate
My own preference would be that any prayers in congress be privately, not officially conducted. That is due on the one hand to my conviction that we should be a pluralistic, secular society, and on the other to my doubt that politically stage managed prayers are of any value. But given that prayers are offered on the floor of congress, the opportunity should be inclusive, not exclusive.
Thus I appreciate the effort of Harry Reid in inviting a Hindu to offer the prayer, and I believe the response of three Christian protesters in the gallery was not a good witness for Jesus. The appropriate response would be courtesy and respect, both for the person who was practicing his religion and for the congress which was recognizing the presence of non-Christians in this country.
For the complete story, see Hindu prayer in Senate disrupted
-
Impeachment and Political Strategy
I have long argued against the war in Iraq on strategic grounds. I don’t object to war when war is absolutely necessary, but I believe that when war is waged for the wrong reasons, conducted improperly, or for unattainable goals, however good those goals sound, that war is a tragedy and is immoral. Killing is such a terrible thing that one must weigh very carefully one’s decision to take that route.
Now we have a situation of political strategy, and I think the various factions are taking just as little consideration for strategy in the political conflict as others have in the planning for war. Recent polls show a substantial amount of support for impeaching President Bush and even more for impeaching Vice-President Cheney. It would be nice if one could believe that most of those who favor impeachment actually knew what impeachment is, and for example which house impeaches and which tries impeachments. That is probably too much to hope. I suspect the answers in favor of impeachment include a large number of folks who simply want Bush and Cheney gone, and the sooner the better. One should also recall that this is the same electorate who once produced an approval rating for Bush in the 80s.
I don’t really like either man. I didn’t vote for them, and I abhor their war policy. I think very often their domestic strategies in terms of home security have been crude and ineffective while unnecessarily threatening civil rights. I think Bush’s use of signing statements to ignore portions of the law is wrong. I think his efforts to continue the war right now are misguided. He’s missing an opportunity to at least control the mode of exit. One aspect of the strategy of war is the political support one has for the action. Ignore that portion, and you ask for trouble.
Now I’m no legal expert. I’m not going to argue what congress can and cannot use as the grounds for impeachment. I’m pretty sure, however, that the final answer is going to be that they can use pretty much anything they can get a 2/3 majority of the Senate agree on for conviction. Violating the constitution is a form of violating the law, but it doesn’t have fixed penalties. “Abuse of power” is a rather hazy sort of concept. I actually think it’s quite reasonable to have 2/3 of the Senate agree on what it might be.
But the question is just how valuable is this particular means of getting rid of a president? We’re already into the election campaign for the next presidential election. In a little more than a year we’ll be voting on who we want to succeed Bush and Cheney. Is it a good idea to go through the contentious process of impeachment right now? One question, of course, is whether 2/3 of the Senate would agree to convict on any particular charge. I suspect the answer is no.
The impeachment talk is, I think, directed to the hardliners in the Democratic party and those who are to its left. It shores up the base, and provides a means to keep from losing those supporters to third party candidates. At the same time there are quite a number–a growing number–of people who are like me in one respect. We don’t have party loyalty. We believe both the Democratic and Republican parties have forfeited any right to our support as parties. When all the partisan bickering has played out (on this topic; there will be another by then), some one of you is going to need our vote, and we’d like to see you show some good strategic sense, an ability to see all aspects of a problem and to find the best strategy to get where you’re going.
Cindy Sheehan has told Speaker Nancy Pelosi she’s going to run against her if she doesn’t work to impeach President Bush. I think this is a good opportunity for Pelosi to demonstrate some good strategic sense. Not statesmanship; that would probably be too much to ask–just good strategy. She can say, “No, that’s a bad idea. I’m interested in keeping and building a Democratic majority. I’m more interested in withdrawing from Iraq successfully than I am in scoring revenge points on the current President.”
She’s played this one right so far; hopefully she’ll continue.
-
Guard Your Mind
20My child, pay attention to my words,
Listen closely to my sayings.21Don’t let them escape from your sight,
Guard them deep in your mind.22For those who find them find life,
They bring healing to the whole person.23Above everything guard your mind*,
Because from it flows your life.24Turn your mouth away from crooked speech,
And keep lying speech far from your lips.25Keep your eyes looking straight down the path,
And gaze only at what lies ahead.26Clear the path your feet must follow,
and all your ways will be firm and safe.27Don’t turn to the right or the left,
Keep your feet away from evil. — Proverbs 4:20-27 (my free translation)* Literally heart. In this case the seat of thoughts, wisdom, and rational processes.
One of the things that I notice in American culture, and particularly in the church is that people are not discriminating in what they read, hear, and watch. I’m not pushing censorship, or heavy limitations on what you give a listen or look to, but rather with how you listen or look.
Ads on television, for example, are designed to leave you with an impression. If you actually watch most TV ads, and analyze the words and the information content, you’ll find that there is very little there. A certain insurance company informs you that by spending 15 minutes on their web site, you could save 15% or more on your insurance. Now you really haven’t learned that much new, have you? It didn’t say you would. It couldn’t. The company doesn’t know how much you’re currently spending. But their intention is to leave you with the connection between their brand name and saving money. I don’t object to them doing that–it’s what advertising on television is about, and they’ve been very successful at it.
Political and church ads are very similar. An ad from my denomination (United Methodist) informs viewers that our hearts, our minds, and our doors are open. What exactly does that tell you? Really very little. Again, the idea is to place in your mind a connection between the church and welcoming. In practice you will find somewhat varying levels of welcome in different United Methodist churches, which should be no surprise. Methodist churches, like all others, have people in them, and people aren’t always the same.
Political ads are very much the same. Have you noticed how hard it is to find concrete information on a candidate? You have to go to a variety of issue related web sites, various journalistic sites, and so forth, then you have to evaluate your various sources, because they each have their own agenda, and finally, if you put in the effort, you may be able to get a substantial picture of a particular politician.
Why is this? The politician is counting on a large enough number of voters not checking them out thoroughly. They want to create a particular impression. Why is it that negative political ads tend to work, even though substantial percentages of voters claim not to like them? Because the impression is left. Normally we take breaks during television ads. We see them out of the corners of our eyes, and we don’t concentrate on them. “Who could?” you say. True, but by looking but not thinking, we allow the impression the ad maker desires to get into our minds. The handsome candidate in front of his church with his perfectly angelic kids is giving us the impression that he’s a family man with family values. His opponent might show his image with various other scenes along with it–scenes of guys with cards in a smoke filled room, of money being exchanged in a furtive way, or of other negative images. It won’t matter if the man is really the someone who launders money and makes shady deals in smoke filled roooms, nor whether or not he actually is a church-going family man. The point is that his image is associated with that particular image in enough people’s minds. And believe me, if you don’t actually give full consideration to the candidate and factual information about him or her, you will be influenced by the image.
I refuse to vote based on my image at the time. I look up each and every candidate and find as much hard data about him or her as I possibly can. I make lists. Then my wife and I sit down and compare notes. Sometimes one of us will have found information that the other missed, or will see a flaw in some plan that the other didn’t notice. We sit down with the complete sample ballot and look at each item. Sometimes we find we’re going to vote different ways. Sometimes we change our minds. But we guard our path carefully and keep focused on the right way, looking for the truth to the best of our ability.
Christians face another trap–the piety trap. By this I don’t mean that you want to avoid candidates who tell you they are Christian. But as the saying goes you can walk into a garage, but it doesn’t make you a car, and you can walk into a church, but it doesn’t make you a Christian. Even further, we know that being a Christian does not make you perfect, and we have many fallen Christian leaders as examples. We also have many Christian politicians who have not behaved in an exemplary fashion. Claims and associations do not guarantee good character.
I have seen this come up in business as well. I once was contacted by a man who was creating a Christian business directory for the area. He told me he thought that Christians should give their business to other Christians. He was quite put out when I told him I was all about being in contact with people who were not Christians. I had no problem doing business with people of other faiths or of no faith at all.
But I’m most concerned with the reverse. There are many fads and scams out there, and they offend me, because they prey on people in need. Just join our marketing scheme, they tell you, and you will become healthy, wealthy, and wise. I do not mean to disparage all business opportunities for all people. You need to exercise judgment here as well. There might be that business opportunity that is just right for you. But check it our very thoroughly. Talk to other businessmen. Check small business support organizations in your area.
What does this have to do with Christianity? Well, some scam artists know very well that there are vulnerable Christians who are in need, and if they just suggest that this is God’s plan, and that they are simply fine Christian people sharing God’s blessings with you, they will seem very safe. But many, many people have lost huge sums of money by investing it in supposedly “Christian” scams. The claim of being a Christian is not proof that one is honest; it is even less relevant to the claim of being wise.
Don’t go with the impressions! Seek the facts. Apply wisdom. Let God’s wisdom into your heart and guard your paths. The book of Proverbs is in the Bible for a reason. God has given you a brain. Use it!