Out of Egypt:

what did Jesus say about the city on a hill?

Not, as Sarah Palin says, that it was "shining," but that it could not be hidden.

The latter half of this Harper's article is enlightening on how her conception of American exceptionalism is really just a form of idolatry. Self-criticism is needed if we are to exemplify righteousness.

in re: the public school debate - this seems about right

From the Creative Capitalism blog (which Melinda linked a while back):

[C]ompanies should meet their responsibilities to pay taxes, obey regulations and so on, but governments' track records in solving social problems are severely tarnished, particularly in the developing world, as many contributors have pointed out. On the other hand, private charity is never going to be able to provide fair and equal access to education - voluntary provision was tried in Victorian Britain, for example, and only scratched the surface, despite a massive outpouring of public generosity.

I wish that that second sentence could be read by all the American evangelicals who think that we can abolish the public schools, and still give every child in this country an education.

Yes, the public schools are broken. But I have yet to be convinced that churches, parishes, or any other private institution could educate the nation's children on a national scale.

Christian schools' record on accomodating special needs students is particularly poor. And, aside from the Catholic schools, very few Christian schools reach the inner cities or minority students at all.

Homeschooling is a great option - for those who can afford it. The rest of the nation needs to have a strong school system in place, so that parents (single parents especially) can continue to do the work they need to do to support their families.

Insofar as Christians are obligated to work for the good of the social order, we ought to work for the betterment of the public school system, even if we choose not to educate our own children in it. This is, to my mind, the only position which recognizes the value of a Christian education while still allowing all access to education. We can work to make Christian education a possibility for as many families as possible. But we should not expect that we can eliminate the public school system entirely.

The public school system was created, in part, because no private institution could make universal education possible. The Catholic Church is the only one that even comes close. As far as Protestants go, we can't even coordinate our private charity efforts. What makes us think that we could run a school system?

reconstructionism/theonomy: a fair-minded secular account

This is something I wouldn't have expected to find: a secular account of the origins of Christian Reconstructionism and its variants which isn't glaringly inaccurate, and which shows a surprising level of comprehension of theonomic epistemology.

Admittedly, it's from a self-proclaimed progressive watchdog group, but it's actually less scathing in tone than what I would write myself. Guess it's more important for me to try to distance myself from the theonomists.

I am particularly grateful that the authors recognize that theonomists aren't lurking behind Bush's shoulders - that, in fact, most of them would find Bush's statist ideology repugnant. The political landscape is far more complex than a simple opposition between Left and Right; both authoritarianism and libertarianism can make for strange bedfellows.

Ron Paul's moral stain

From the realm of scandals I missed until they were over...

Ron Paul's newsletter was a safe haven for race-baiting and gay-bashing for decades.

Paul's campaign was great at raising the national profile of libertarianism. But Paul has never renounced his ties to men like Lew Rockwell and Gary North, people who I wouldn't trust to run a lemonade stand, much less a country.

As far as who the ghostwriters were for his newsletter, this comment sounds dead on: "The racist garbage sounds like Lew. The antigay hate sounds like Gary North. The Israeli-conspiracy stuff sounds like Paul."
[from comments on The Agitator blog]

looking for a nonpartisan analysis of the candidates' tax policies?

Check out the updated report from the Tax Policy Center/Brookings Institute (PDF).

Key quote: "The two candidates' tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects...McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group - seniors - and an already favored activity - homeownership - which could probably be directed elsewhere."

I'm encouraged to see that this is in accord with my own earlier analysis. I'm discouraged to see that the candidates aren't proposing something better.

This is also notable: "In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible."

No surprises there.

Bottom line: "Senator Obama's plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain's plan would add $5.0 trillion. This does not include the cost of expanding health insurance coverage and assumes that Senator McCain's proposals phase in and phase out on schedule."

I like the way they describe this as "mortgaging the future." And we've all seen what happens with mortgages lately.

McCainomics: a teaser for my critique

When McCain clinched the Republican nomination, there were two primary reasons I was opposed to his candidancy: 1) his overly militaristic foreign policy, and 2) his regressive and economically unsound tax proposal, which is a reversal from his previous stance.

I'll do my own critique of his tax proposal, and the rest of his plans, later. Till then, here's a liberal policy group's analysis of his plan (PDF). While I may not agree with all their conclusions, I agree with the general tenor of the report. The following line is worthy of special note:
"This analysis likely understates the true regressive nature of both the Bush and McCain tax cuts because it does not include the cost to families of the budget cuts that will ultimately be needed to pay for the tax cuts."

Here's one of the ways McCain would try to pay for his tax cuts: "heavy [funding] cuts [for] after-school programs, student aid, public broadcasting, and job training." Oh, and elimination of the low-income housing tax credit. But, according to this analysis, none of this would be nearly enough. He would have to eliminate major programs or cut entitlement spending dramatically if he wanted to even have a chance to balance the budget.

I did say in my critique of Obama's policies that I was in favor of a consumption tax of some kind, instead of an income tax. But if we were to have a consumption tax, low-income Americans would have to be exempt in order to prevent the tax burden from falling disproportionately upon them. Also, I wouldn't support elimination of taxes on wealth, such as the inheritance or capital gains tax. As far as corporate tax rates go, I'd have to study the issue further, but I doubt that McCain's plan would have the magical growth-inducing properties he claims.

For the above-mentioned reasons, I find it difficult to support McCain in good conscience. I can only hope that he goes back to his previous stance for fiscal responsibility (he opposed the Bush tax cuts when they were enacted), and abandons the attempt to curry favor with "the base" by advocating an inequitable and fiscal irresponsible tax policy. If he becomes President, and this plan is passed, it will be my generation who ends up paying for it. As the Concord Coalition says, we're already in a budget crisis now. Let's get out before it's too late.

McCain, you're making things difficult for me...

Why couldn't you have a PDF policy statement like Obama has? It would make it so much easier for me to go point-by-point. As it is, you're going to make me go to at least 10 different pages on your website to critique your positions.

Later this week, maybe...

i repent of ever having supported Obama

When I said I supported Obama several months ago, I was not aware of this: Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which even NARAL did not oppose.

I could never support a politician who would not oppose infanticide.

His logic speaks for itself:

... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. [Barack Obama - IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001]

There he is - so committed to "protecting a women's right to choose" that he sees a law intended to protect live births as the start of a dangerous slippery slope.

UPDATE: I just read Obama's Call to Renewal speech from earlier this year. While it is insightful in parts, and certainly nuanced, it doesn't say that he would actually be willing to moderate his position on abortion. It just says that he'll speak nicely about it. But when people are dying, I'm afraid that can't be enough.

assessing Obama's Blueprint for Change

After watching McCain's nasty (but effective) "celebrity" commercial today, I thought it would be only fair to Obama if I read his Blueprint for Change, which is, as far as I know, the most substantiative statement of his public policy agenda.

After reading it, I have to say Obama does have definite plans for the country, and some good ideas. Unfortunately, he has far more ideas than he has money to pay for them, nor would the government likely do a good job at many of the things he would like it to do.

In the following, I review Obama's blueprint section-by-section. If McCain has a similar document, I'd like to know. This was quite enlightening.

• Introductory Letter: He claims to be against the Red America, Blue America divide. It didn't take long in the primary campaign for it to become clear just how liberal he was though. The question is whether that's a good thing.
• Government Lobbying, Ethics Reform, and Accountability: no one like lobbying (except for lobbyists). He makes some good suggestions, although they would be hard to implement. I like his proposal to create a search engine to track federal grants, etc. Obama is more likely to make government information readily accessible online than McCain.
• Universal Health Care: The health care system in the U.S. is broken. No one disputes that. But with the recent scandals at the VA and Medicare running gargantuan deficits, can anyone seriously think that the government could do a better job than the insurance companies? We don't live in Sweden, or even in Canada. Anyone who claims they can create new entitlement programs while still cutting taxes is out of touch with economic reality. Oh, and the "lowering costs" is full of every politicians' dream - unfunded mandates.
  State-level health care programs, such as MassHealth, stand a better chance of working - especially since they don't try to cover everyone. A federal program would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
• Strengthening the Economy: Apparently Obama thinks that the government can take a leading role in bailing out the free market economy. I am skeptical. This deserves a more detailed list:
1. Taxes: No one can get elected without promising a middle-class tax cut. Unfortunately, the middle class never asks how they'll pay for it. As a young American, the inclination of my elders to take a "pay later" philosophy to the national debt is deeply disturbing.
   Real tax reform is needed, but it would require structural change, not more special provisions for those with whom you want to curry favor.
   As far as his proposal to simplify tax filings, I would support it if I knew what it was, or I trusted the experts that he cites.
2. Trade: His statements here are code words for Democratic opposition to free trade. Apparently, he thinks that we can put up barriers between us and the world economy without feeling negative effects. I wonder how he expects opposition to agreements like NAFTA to increase our standing in the world.
3. Technology: He will "encourage the deployment of the most modern communications infrastructure." With whose money? Ours, apparently. Well, actually, my generation's, since he's not going to raise taxes to pay for it now, but simply let the debt accumulate.
   Seems to me the free market does a better job of deploying new technologies than the government does. Simply compare government websites with those of the Fortune 500.
4. Labor: I will refrain from comment on his policies in regard to labor unions and workers' rights, since I don't know much about the subject, nor does he say much to enlighten me. As far as raising the minimum wage goes, I can only say he must like the prospect of more under-the-table employment.
   The Earned Income Tax Credit is a good thing, in light of the brokenness of our current tax system, but comprehensive tax reform (such as replacing the income tax with a sales tax from which low-income individuals were exempt) would be better, I think.
5. Home Ownership: I thought middle-class homeowners already got tax credits. I'd like to know how he's defining the middle class. If it's anything like Clinton's definition, apparently those making $100,000 a year are included.
   This is the only section so far in which he's said anything about how he's paying for his proposals, and even here he only says "partially."
6. Bankruptcy Reform: I like the idea of an exemption in bankruptcy law for those who file due to medical expenses. But, like all good ideas, it might have unintended consequences.
7. Credit Cards: I like the idea of a rating system for credit cards, but I think that a non-government agency would do a better job. It could become a way for credit card companies to gain a competitive advantage, such that they would voluntarily apply for a rating. The Credit Card Bill of Rights' provisions seem reasonable. However, if consumers had better information about credit cards before they signed up for them, the Bill of Rights (and its associated regulatory burden) might not be necessary.
   I support the idea of a cap on payday loan interest rates.
8. Work-Family: I must admit, having worked in an after-school program, I am biased in this area. I have lobbied for increased funding for after-school programs in the past, and will do so again. I think that government funding for after-school programs can be beneficial, since most after-school programs are small community-based or faith-based organizations, and the funding does not generally come with too many strings attached. I don't know about the specifics of the 21st Century Learning Centers program, though. It might be more bureaucratic than others.
   I wish that Obama would also promise to decrease the regulatory burden on after-school programs. Then they might not need so much funding.
   The idea of a child-care tax credit for low-income families sounds good, although it might be better simply to lower taxes. The more tax credits we add, the more complex the already-labyrinthine tax system gets.
• Social Security & Retirement: I'm glad that Obama supports raising the cap on Social Security payroll taxes, so they apply to more than the first $97,000 of income. This took more political courage than announcing new government benefit programs did. However, if Obama were really going to be honest about the long-term solvency of Social Security, one would think he would apply the same standard to his own proposals, like universal health care.
  Full disclosure of company pension statements sounds good. Automatic workplace pension enrollment might be good. Eliminating income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 sounds good, if he had a plan for paying for it.
  Most economists believe that the creation of the Medicare prescription drug plan was imprudent, especially since it covers seniors who had previous coverage. Obama is apparently aware of the plan's problems, but lacks the courage to say that the plan shouldn't have covered those who already had comparable or better coverage.
• Education: Obama's "Zero to Five" plan for universal pre-school seems misguided. It would be different if he were saying he would fund the expansion of existing programs in the private sector. As a government program, however, I can't see this going well.
  I'm glad Obama wants to reform No Child Left Behind. Using students' performance on standardized tests as the primary measure of teachers' (and schools') performance has had serious unintended consequences. I like the idea of a Teacher Residency Program, but it seems redundant with Teach for America. Why not simply fund that instead?
  Funding youth intervention, after-school programs, and summer college outreach programs is perhaps the best part of his education plan, since these programs operate "closer to the ground" and thus have better accountability.
  A $4,000 college tax credit would be excellent - if we can find a way to pay for it. This is probably the best of his tax credit plans, since investing in education is critical for our country's future economic and social well-being.
  Eliminating the FAFSA and simply using the income tax information is a great idea. And it would actually save money.
• Energy: The cap-and-trade plan was the worst, and yet the most famous, part of the Kyoto protocol. It's really just 21st-century colonialism, since it enables the wealthy to "offset" their need to curb pollution onto the poor. A carbon tax would provide real economic incentives to the polluters.
  I won't comment on the rest of his plan, other than to say I'm skeptical that all the government spending and new regulatory requirements will help "strengthen America's economy," as he promised to do earlier in the document.
• Fiscal Discipline: Obama says he will reinstitute pay-as-you-go rules for federal spending. I can't imagine how he will be able to get his own new programs passed, then.
  I'm glad he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but he should use the revenues to pay down the deficit, not institute dozens of new programs.
  More disclosure of earmarks is good. I'm glad he wants federal contracts to be competitively bid. That was another one of the Bush administration's many offenses against conservativism.
  I'm glad he would work to close off-shore tax havens, and special interest corporate tax deductions.
• Rural Issues: He says he won't subsidize agribusiness. Good. Country of Origin labeling also sounds good, as does changing the FCC's rural phone program to provide broadband. Still nothing about how he would pay for this and other programs, though.
• Women's Issues: He will "make safeguarding women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority." At least he's honest.
• Immigration Reform: He doesn't say much on this subject. I'd have to know more to comment. I'm glad that he would allow undocumented immigrants to pay a fine and then get on the path to citizenship. Mass deportations aren't really an option, as much as Dobbs, O'Reilly and their ilk may rail against illegal immigrants. The War on Illegal Immigration would be about as successful as any of the other Wars on abstract nouns have been. I wish I knew what Obama would do to "promote economic development in Mexico," especially because of his stance on trade.
• Poverty: Most of these programs have been mentioned before in other sections. I won't repeat my earlier comments.
  I understand the Community Development Block Grant program is quite good. I'm glad that he supports it.
• Universal Voluntary Public Service: Again, I am biased. His bold plan to expand AmeriCorps has my approval. Government funding is most effective when it is sent back out of the government to private community-based and faith-based organizations. I only hope that McCain, in response, will remember his own 2001 speech in support of AmeriCorps. Ideally, the need for national service would be one thing that the two candidates can agree upon, Obama having served as a community organization and McCain in the military.
• Civil Rights: The DOJ is in desperate need of reform after the scandals of the Bush Administration. He promises to reverse its politicization, which is good. However, I also fear judicial overreaching by the EEOC, etc., which can have unintended consequences. I am glad he would eliminate the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder-based cocaine. Of course, I would probably go farther than he would in reducing penalties for drug possession.
• Securing America/Restoring Standing in the World: With Iraq still at risk for civil war, I am skeptical of Obama's judgment in setting a timetable for withdrawal. While I don't believe the war was justified, we have an obligation now to ensure the security and stability of the region. I question whether he (or anyone) has the expertise to bring a resolution to the conflict through purely diplomatic means.
  We certainly should exercise our full diplomatic options with Iran, but we can't offer all carrots and no sticks, as his plan ("incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization," etc.) seems to.
  I agree that we should be willing to meet with foreign leaders, but not without conditions, as Obama seems to believe. If Bush had gone to Iran or to North Korea, would things really be better? Let's not run from one extreme (nation-building, preemptive strikes) to the other (diplomatic naiveté).
  The Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty in half by 2015 is worthy of support, but we need to be careful that our foreign aid isn't simply creating dependency and shoring up hostile regimes.
  "Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years." With his bare hands? I am glad though that he won't threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorists. Acceptance of civilian casualties in war has gone too far, ever since Hiroshima and the firebombing of Dresden.
  Obama says he will make great investments in the military, and increase the number of troops. Somehow I doubt that he will be able to do this, while also enacting all his sweeping domestic programs.
  I like his plans to increase openness and bipartisanship on foreign policy matters. Hopefully, McCain would do the same. I can't imagine either could be worse than the Bush administrator.
  I'm glad Obama and McCain are opposed to the genocide in the Sudan. However, I don't know if they will really be able to do anything about it. China's really the one with the leverage here.
• Veterans' Issues: Ah, yes, the healthcare system already run by the government. Obama promises to reform it. Hopefully, he would do this before he tries to start a totally new government healthcare system.

kind of ironic that i'm now registered as a Democrat

When I look at the Washington Post's key votes database for the last Congress, I see that I come down on the Republican side more often than not. The main areas in which I differ from the Republicans, of course, are civil liberties and immigration policy. Guess I have successfully been converted to libertarianism after all. My brief fascination with Obama passed after I looked at his policies more closely, and I'm now closer to where I was near the beginning of the election season, when I was a Ron Paul supporter.

It's hard for me to be consistent in political views. When I look at things from the 30,000-foot view, dramatic social programs can seem attractive. But when it comes down to the actual implementation, and the unintended economic side-effects, I realize that it's generally better for the government to leave well enough alone.

That said, I don't support the tax cut policies of either Obama or McCain, as I believe that they are a poor substitute for fiscal responsibility. McCain claims that he will fund his tax cuts by eliminating government waste. However, any serious investigation of the budget would show that waste is not the main cause of government expenditure. Obama, as far as I know, doesn't even attempt to explain how he will fund his tax cuts - and program increases.

financial anxiety

So I just had to transfer another $100+ out of my savings account, which is now pretty much wiped out. And I'm not even in school yet. And I need to find either a new roommate or a new place to live in the next 6 weeks. Lord, give me strength.

What's really killing me financially, of course, is having to pay for medication out of pocket, then wait weeks for reimbursement (which I haven't received yet). Say what you will about "socialized medicine" but it certainly was better than the fictional health insurance that I'm on now.

My position on issues of government social services spending is different than most people's, I think. I'm not categorically opposed to it; in fact, I think it has an important role to play in preserving a halfway-decent quality of life for those near the bottom of the economic ladder. However, I don't think we should promise people things that we can't afford to pay for. Lowering taxes and increasing government spending: that's the real pipe dream. But it's what we've been doing for decades.

John McCain runs against the 60s, Obama reassures leftists he's one of them

This is going to be an interesting election season.

libertarian questions, pt. 2

Are Constitutional rights and Locke's "natural rights" one and the same? Are you certain that the framers of the Constitution got it right based on empirical grounds or do you simply accept that as a presupposition of your system?

Do the differences between an 18th-century agrarian economy and a 21st-century post-industrial economy have any bearing on how the political order should be run?

the only Biblical command we succeeded in obeying

Genesis 1:28.

When humans were few in number and lacking in technological skill, the language of ruling over nature was appropriate. God's calling upon us now is different. If we are to rule over nature, we are to rule as Christ rules over the Church. "The one who is greatest must be servant of all." Otherwise, we are constructing a biotechnological Tower of Babel.

a question for all libertarians

How do you plan to protect the rights of the consumer in a world of imperfect information?

is this a contradiction?

"In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee [when confirmed as Supreme Court Justice], Scalia said that he considered the most important part of the Constitution to be the system of 'checks and balances among the three branches....so that no one of them is able to "run roughshod" over the liberties of the people.'"

Scalia on 60 Minutes: "Has anyone ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."

What it seems like he's suggesting is that torture is bad in itself, but not constitutionally banned, and thus may justified in certain cases - i.e., to get information necessary for national security. However, the recent scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo show that torture was not being used to get information, but rather to punish people for being suspected terrorists.

In any case, torture is still a violation of civil rights, even if it's not "cruel and unusual punishment," strictly speaking. Scalia may say at the beginning of the interview clip that it is "odious," but his later comments seem to suggest that it may be permitted in certain circumstances. Even if he is right about the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment," I would question his judgment on whether torture can be justifiably (or even practically) used to gain information. Permitting torture - even in what seem to be carefully restricted circumstances - seems to me to be a certain way to "'run roughshod' over the liberties of the people."

obama vs. small town pa?

So now I've read Obama's comments on small-town Pennsylvanians. I have to admit I understand where he's coming from. I've said much the same thing in regard to Hazleton's immigration laws - or the attitudes of some from Lancaster County, for that matter.

However, there's a difference between me criticizing the attitudes of fellow Pennsylvanians and an outsider doing it. I still support Obama, but I wish he had spoken more carefully.

forgot to mention...

Because I'm still registered Republican, unfortunately, I can't actually make a difference in the Pennsylvania primary, when it's needed.

at the risk of being a bandwagon jumper...

I now support Obama's candidacy. This little tax policy comparison chart was what sealed the deal. The other candidates don't seem as concerned about the state of the working poor. McCain definitely seems to be following the logic of Reaganomics, which isn't really logic at all.

hope for the best, prepare for the worst

I believe that America is headed for economic crisis resulting from the burden of national debt, our trade deficit, reliance upon artificial financial instruments to fund growth, and, most significantly, the coming global energy crisis. However, I am having trouble finding an article that demonstrates this without doing so in a gleeful "I told you so" manner. James Howard Kunstler is right out. However, this review at least gives a summary of his main ideas without endorsing his attitude toward the changes that may come.

I don't want to become a survivalist, but I do want to be prepared. Though I'm excited to be learning about technology and communications, I'm beginning to think I should have a backup plan in case the world is no longer in need of good web design. If the world went back to a medieval economy, I'm currently equipped to do little besides be a scholar in a monastery. And I don't think there will be many of those positions to go around.

UPDATE: Actually, on further reading, "The Post-Oil Megacity," by a Kunstler critic, promotes an alternative vision that I could get behind. My read of Kunstler is that he expects the worst to happen because he really wants us all to live a Wendell Berry-esque kind of life. But I don't think that's the only future available to us.

hard to believe the hubris of april 2003

[A]s Secretary of State Colin L. Powell put it on Thursday: ''We have been successful in Iraq. There is a new dynamic in that part of the world.''

romney no more

Oh happy day - Romney is out of the race. I'm glad Huckabee stuck it out longer than him. Though I don't think I would vote for Huckabee myself, he is at least an authentic, rather than a disingenuous, social conservative.

Romney managed to annoy me one last time, with this parting shot: according to the AP, on Thursday he "suggested McCain would be a liability in a race in which the 71-year-old would be trying to become the oldest person ever elected president, while Clinton was trying to become the first female president and Obama, the first black."

So what does that mean exactly? Was Romney trying to present himself as the generic middle-age white male in the presidential race? What happened to his Mormon pride? Romney can't be counted on for much, but he can always be trusted to say exactly what (he thinks) his audience wants to hear.

the turn toward the concrete

When I was younger (well, not that much younger - when I was in college), I was almost the quintessential humanities major: interested in literature, philosophy, and the arts, but mostly indifferent to social science, politics, economics, and business. The past two years have changed all that.

As I was graduating, I self-consciously decided that academia was not in my future - that I should seek practice more than theory. I didn't know what exactly that would look like, but an internship in inner-city Boston sounded something like it. Of course, I got more than I bargained for, but it worked out well in the end.

Now - more so than I ever did at Covenant - I feel a sense of calling. And those things that were once boring to me, the stuff of the "9-to-5 world," now appear to be the playing field on which the great struggles of our time will be decided.

I don't hope to understand everything; just enough to give me a just cause to pursue. In this election year, I feel it is more important than ever that we exercise our Constitutional right (privilege? duty?) to vote. I'm not sure who I'll be voting for yet, but I want to know as much about the issues as I can.

mass confusion is the real parallel with the 16C.

I have no words adequate to describe this video.

Ron Paul supporters linking their cause to Guy Fawkes Day? Bizarre and ill-advised.

David Horowitz linking libertarianism to "blame-America-first" liberalism to "Islamo-fascism"? Paradigmatic neoconservative bait-and-switch.

Calling decision-makers on the Iraq War to return to "traditional values" of "finishing what we start"? Soundbites and symbols substituted for analysis.

And through it all, the same jumpcut, infographic mentality that Stephen Colbert parodies so eloquently on "The Colbert Report," except here it's for real. And on CNN.

I think the words of Marshall McLuhan describe our current political landscape all too well:

"Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer…And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside. So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence…Terror is the normal state of any oral society, for in it everything affects everything all the time." (from The Gutenberg Galaxy)

The democratization of media cannot simply be regarded as a beneficent force. When McLuhan said the world was becoming a "global village," he did not necessarily see that as a positive development. For, as a Catholic, he was well aware of original sin and the tendency of any close-knit community toward hatred of the Other. The unbinding of community from geography does not necessarily mark a "Pentecostal condition of understanding and unity," as McLuhan once said that he hoped to see; it can just as well create an apocalyptic state of mimetic rivalry, in which every political faction or social group demonizes its opponents while at the same time taking on their worst characteristics.

Our culture in fact encourages such behavior. Both Left and Right clamor for "most favored victim" status; tolerance is a hollow virtue, while intolerance is our only remaining sin. Both Left and Right engage in the most blatant and vicious slanders on their opponents, then cry "persecution" when their opponents respond in kind.

And yet I am hopeful, for the Kingdom of God is among us, and comes by no earthly sign.

why is a christian publisher printing hate?

While I was reading about the copyright issue that I referenced below, I saw that radical right-wing talk show Michael Savage has found another way to get himself in the news - this time through a pathetically misguided attempt to silence criticism of his show through IP law.

While ordinarily I think it's best to ignore folks like Savage (who, along with Tom Tancredo, is probably one of the leading exploiters of the white working class), I can't overlook his pretensions to represent Christian faith (presumably, the faith of "white Americans" - see any historical parallels here?).

Anyone can say they are a Christian. I think Savage's overall message betrays where his commitments truly lie.

However, what really disturbs me is that Savage's two most recent books were published by an imprint of a Christian publishing house, Nelson Current. Though I imagine his books are less extreme than his radio show, I still can't believe that Nelson would continue to sell the books of a man who has advocated the forcible conversion of Muslims to Christianity, has asserted that Muslims are sub-human, and has most recently called for the U.S. to bomb Iran. This, I think, deserves protest.

why i'm no longer a "family values" conservative

I still believe the prevalence of abortion is a sign of God's judgment on society. But I believe it is His judgment on a society which tolerates poverty among its most vulnerable members.

Criminalizing abortion without changing the structure of our society would not stop abortion; it would only drive it underground. The pro-life movement is not wrong - but we need to value the born as much as we value the unborn.

in the realm of the absurd, but not surprising

As for Huckabee's recent comments about his surge in popularity, I don't even have to say anything.

Bob Dylan already said it for me.

the nyt is stealing a page from my blog

This Sunday, the NYT Mag just published a long piece about the state of evangelicals in politics. Needless to say, things are not looking good for the old-school Religious Right.

Some call it creeping theological liberalism. But I, like the author of the article, attribute the breakup of the Religious Right to a recognition that the Gospel is a holistic message, and that the Gospel is a message that can sustain itself and be compelling in a secular culture. We don't have to preserve some kind of "American civic religion" consensus in order to prepare people to hear the Gospel. Far from it. In fact, civic religion may be one of the chief stumbling blocks keeping people from hearing the Gospel as what it is - a call to die.

" Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:11-12)

Ann Coulter - the voice of evangelicalism in the public square :(

How Ann Coulter can live with herself is impossible for me to imagine. Not to mention how my fellow Christians can defend her.

Her witnessing strategy (assuming that she actually is a Christian, which is debatable) is to be as offensive as possible. Apparently, she believes that Christianity is "the Federal Express of Judaism," a way out of "obey[ing] laws" so that we can be "perfected." Sound unfamiliar to you? Well, "that's what the New Testament says."

Never mind that Paul said that the engrafted branches should not boast against the natural branches. Never mind that he said that the covenants and the patriarchs belonged to the Jews, and that he wished he could be accursed for the sake of his people. Justin Martyr was less triumphalistic than Coulter.

Needless to say, her interviewer was shocked. And evangelicalism is even more discredited in the eyes of the masses.

with god on our side?

Yeah, this still about sums it up.

bin laden anniversary letter

In which Bin Laden casts himself as the defender of freedom and human rights against the tyranny of the West.

the price of consistency

After seeing the aftermath of the Iraq War (which I regrettably supported in 2001-02, because I, like much of the media, believed the WMD story), I have increasingly been leaning toward a non-interventionist foreign policy. Ann Coulter, despite my contempt for her, raises a good point in her most recent column: it is nothing but foolishness for anti-war liberals to oppose our involvement in the Middle East and yet urge us to commit more troops to Darfur, for humanitarian reasons.

Of course, I disagree with her ultimate conclusion. Like 90% of the country, I cannot close my eyes to the royal mess we have made of Mesopotamia, where all our options are bad options. Coulter needs a lesson in logic. We shouldn't involve our volunteer army - which is already stretched disastrously thin - in Darfur, because Sudanese militants pose no threat to us. But this truth does not justify our involvement in Iraq - after all, these days only hardline neo-cons argue that Saddam himself posed an imminent threat to us.

If war wasn't so horrible - if it didn't require people to die - then naturally, I would say intervene in Darfur. I too am horrified by what's going on in the region. But if I'm to be to be consistent with my principles - no "entangling alliances," no nation-building, no wars of choice - than I cannot support a mission that has the potential to be another Somalia. And I'm sorry to hear Brownback is at the forefront of the movement to commit more troops.

Humanitarian aid is one thing. We Americans need to sacrifice more, using our position of international prominence to advocate for the rights of the marginalized. But there's a vast difference between diplomacy and war. My greatest regret is that the militarism of the Bush Administration has made us less able to exercise our muscle in the former way.

the neo-cons cling tenaciously to their unreason

...even in the face of opposition from leading generals, and others who understand the reality of the war.

Has the surge been approved yet? I'm so discouraged by politics I haven't even been keeping track. I wonder what it's going to take for this madness to end.

See this clip of William Kristol losing all touch with reality. "Can't the Democrats keep quiet?" he says. The American people elected them because they were sick of the incompetence with which the current administration was conducting the war. There was a time a few months back when I thought Bush might actually listen to the Iraq Study Group report; he said he was getting new advisors on the war, etc. But this latest plan - the troop surge - shows he had no intention of changing from a losing course. If it's not the responsibility of the Congress to stop this, I don't know whose it is.

As I posted a while back, we need to revise the balance of power in our government. The executive does not have the right to run roughshod over the will of the people, as expressed by their elected officials.

I'm so embarassed that I've been voting for Republicans lately. I was locked into the party by my social conservativism, but all they've been doing on those issues really is pandering. The Schiavo case? The flag-burning amendment? This is not what I meant by social conservativism. The faith-based initiatives were a good idea, though they do raise some 1st Amendment issues; however, I don't think that they're really being implemented. Bush has appointed some good Supreme Court justices; that's about the only thing I'm thankful for. Insofar as conservativism is about fiscal responsibility and restraint in foreign affairs, the Bush administration has been one of the least conservative in recent memory.

an all-too-brief response, re: the difference between theonomists and generic evangelicals involved in politics

(In response to John, in the comments of the original post:)

Let me try to restate the point of my last paragraph in the theonomy post. I recognize that conservative Christians, as well as neo-cons, form a major part of Bush's base. But most conservative Christians are not Reconstructionists/theonomists, as they are described in the (admittedly quite long and insider-y) article I linked. This is a distinction which is difficult to grasp without some understanding of theology, and since most liberals (especially the more left-wing ones) have been taught to dismiss theological as "talk about nothing" (shades of logical positivism?) that's so much wasted effort to them.

Conservative Christians - the whole spectrum, including me - have plenty of positions which are antithetical to those of liberals. After all, I'm not in support of redefining marriage or of abortion rights. However, I don't believe that God has a special blessing for America, by contrast with other nations, nor do I believe that God's will is for us to support Israel unconditionally, as many evangelicals do, Pat Robertson being a well-known example. And I oppose these positions, which are widely held on the Christian Right, because I believe in Reformed theology. Conversely, I also oppose the theonomic loonies because I believe they represent a corruption of Reformed theology. To complicate things still further, the theonomists believe God has a special blessing for America, but they believe this for different reasons than mainstream evangelicals do (and, furthermore, the difference in their reasons for believing this affects their political action), and they strongly oppose the mainstream evangelical support of Israel.

Ideas have consequences, even theological ones.

That's why in the end, it hurts both liberals and conservatives if liberals are unable or unwilling to understand distinctions between their opponents. Libertarians are not neo-cons are not the Left Behind crowd are not theonomists. It's just as foolish to lump all them together, and to think that they all throw their weight behind the current administration (and do so on the same issues), as it is to lump together the teachers' unions, the LGBT lobby, the labor unions, and minorities.

The situation is analogous on both sides, Left and Right. Both parties are really marriages of convenience. No one with an ideology gets to see their vision implemented in anything like its full "glory." Politicians, to get elected, must please a diverse group of people some of the time, while minimizing the number of times they must offend each group in turn.

I admit I voted for Santorum because I wanted the Republicans to have a majority in the Senate. And I wanted that because I wanted to see strict constructionist judges and (possibly) justices get confirmed. And in future elections, I'm sure I'll continue to have reasons to vote for the Republicans. But I won't be happy about it.

And believe me, the theonomists certainly aren't happy about voting Republican, and they don't vote Republican. They couldn't, in good conscience, do so, because they want to demolish the welfare state, privatize everything but the army, police, and courts, and reinstitute what they call Biblical law. There are many interpretations of it, but it would basically be like a mild form of Shariah. However, they don't believe in coercion when it comes to matters of religion, so the assertions made in some liberal publications, such as "every government employee would have to attend Bible study," are simply false. Trust me, the theonomists are marginal.

D. James Kennedy and George Grant, whom I mentioned, are more dangerous, because they're willing to work within the system. But they don't exactly have Bush's ear; they don't even like the United Methodist Church, of which Bush is a part - they believe it's liberal and largely apostate.

The administration's relationship with evangelicals is largely exploitative - make a few gestures toward "faith-based" work (although the administration has sponsored some excellent work done by evangelicals overseas, as Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times), talk about abortion occasionally, advocate an amendment that was guaranteed to fail, etc. Support for the war is not something that was initially an "evangelical" thing, and it's not why they initially supported Bush. After all, pre-9/11, Bush seemed to advocate a largely isolationist foreign policy, and then afterward, most of the nation that supported the push to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Evangelicals were just along for the ride. The neo-cons may have been driving - they may have even been pushing Bush to invade Iraq pre-9/11 - but the latter part of that story doesn't seem credible to me. We really had no compelling interest there absent the suspicion of WMD.

But, in any case, this is a tangent. The main point is that the liberal talk about the conservative agenda to reclaim America for Christ as if this agenda were monolitihic is specious. It's just as specious as its counterpart on the right - the monolithic liberal agenda to purge God from everything, with its subagendas like the "gay agenda," the "feminist agenda," etc. On both sides, there are people who want to do these things, but there's not even substantial agreement among these people about how to carry the project out.

Thus, we remain in a kind of awkward equilibrium created by the balancing of extremes. Liberals remain dominant in popular culture, the news media, and academia, while conservatives have, in the past 20 years, become a significant force in politics. And both the Left and the Right have changed character in the recent decades by shifting their focus from economic issues to social issues. Hence the appellation "culture wars" for the age in which we now live.

As for me, I don't really have a dog in this fight. Christians have prospered under persecution, and have often faltered when given the reins of power. My concern is for social change, yes, but I - unlike those of my parents' generation - am deeply skeptical that significant change can be achieved by political means.

So the question remains: would you, as a non-Christian, like to live in my world? Perhaps not. But I'm not an ideologue of the Left or Right - at least I strive not to be; I don't have a vision of an ideal world which I'm trying to impose upon the real. I expect the real change will come through the work of Christians, yes, but it will come like a tree from the smallest of seeds, growing till its branches overshadow the earth.

Rumsfeld resigns...

...and the whole country rejoices.

Say what you will about Bush, he knows how to make his advisors take the heat. It happened with Ashcroft, now it's happened with Rumsfeld. It's actually kind of a brilliant strategy - if you have radical views, get someone working for you who has more radical views, and when people object to the whole deal, then that person can be the scapegoat.

At least I think that's what going on. And perhaps that was what was going on with the whole Miers thing (except in reverse, sort of), although that may be too clever by half.

And to finish up my thoughts on Santorum vs. Casey, it's not that I think Casey will be a bad senator. I think he'll actually be great, possibly better than Santorum was. I just didn't want the Dems to get a majority, or for there to be deadlock. But that's happened now, and would've happened even had the PA swung the other way. (Although that apparently wasn't likely, since the vote wasn't even as close as I thought it would be. PA voters were in a "throw the bums out" mood, just as I suspected that they were.)

OK, so my senator lost...

...and maybe he deserved it. But I don't like to see the balance of power shift. I don't like the idea of deadlock for two more years.

If people think that Congress hasn't done anything lately, just wait till they see what's coming.

I am glad to see that Lieberman defeated Lamont though. Maybe David Gergen is right and a viable 3rd party will rise up out of the ashes of the two-party system. It's about time.

Guess I'm going to go to bed before I know just how bad things are for the Republicans. More thoughts tomorrow.

And I voted for Santorum (by absentee ballot), despite wishing he would distance himself from Bush. I think Pennsylvanians were more upset by his Virginia residency though - at least in Lancaster County.

~~~

Read this post - thoughts worth pondering.

i ran across this while writing my spider eaters essay...

The Museum of Communism FAQ, with a list of Mao's crimes against humanity. This provides a good "big picture" counterpoint to the story of Rae Yang, who it seems didn't witness most of the worst of what went on during the years she lived in China.

"Liberal": the word vs. the entity

The day I posted on medical ethics, a friend of mine sent me a response that I thought raised a good question. Essentially, he asked me "Why do you avoid using the word 'liberal' to describe a position that you hold?" This was my response.

I do want to distance myself from the word "liberal" since it has become a pejorative term for the left, just as "fundamentalist" has for the right. Witness the amount of time Kerry & Edwards spent trying to convince people they weren't "liberal," or at least "too liberal." Of course the Ludwig von Mises "classical liberalism" crowd (today we call them libertarian - look 'em up at Mises.org, they're fascinatingly and intelligently wrong-headed) tries to argue that this isn't what "liberal" mean- it simply means "individual freedom, pursuit of life, liberty, and property" Declaration of Independence-type stuff, as it did originally. But they're arguing against centuries of usage. The meaning has shifted and now I would argue that the use of such terms is unhelpful, at best. Connotation has swallowed up denotation.