I wish that I could recount in this space what I have been discovering in the past few months. I am documenting constant revelations in my trusted Moleskine, and as I thumb through the worn pages I cannot help but smile. I feel as if large blocks of grand skyline have been torn down inside my mind, crumbling ruins surround me. Dilapidated skyscrapers that once held prominent ideas and concepts from my youth, ideas of politics and theology, concepts of relationships and presuppositions, all have been destroyed. These things have always been a part of me, until now.
I have taken a shovel to a mental hill and an axe to my former thoughts. Ruins are great, if they are then cleaned up and planted with something else. Small seeds will be scattered and sown in the once foreboding tangle of thorns that was in my mind. I hope that those ideas will be rooted in the resurrection and in the Kingdom. If they are not, then all the pain has been for naught!
All I know is that amidst the glorious wreck of my theological and political identity I can smile, because it is glorious ruin.
----
See, Surprised by Hope for more iconoclastic ideas
Showing posts with label Political Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Natan Sharansky's take on Iranian Protests
Below is an excellent column from Natan Sharansky in the LA Times. Sharanksy is a former Soviet dissident and respected thinker (at least by me). As a former dissident, Sharansky analyzed the brewing protests in Iran and what it could mean for that country.
The West should listen to the dissidents in Iran craving freedom -- they can feel the future.By Natan Sharansky
Once again, the world is amazed. As with the seemingly sudden appearance of the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, or the gaudy, grand-scale collapse of the Soviet empire at the end of that decade, the massive revolt of Iranian citizens has elicited the unmitigated surprise of the free world's army of experts, pundits and commentators. Who would have known? Who could have predicted this eruption of protest in a system so highly repressed, where a generally quiescent populace lives under such a deeply entrenched revolutionary regime?
And yet, just as in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, there were those in Iran who did know all along, who foresaw and even foretold today's events. These were Iran's democratic dissidents, some at home, some in exile, some having served long sentences in Iranian prisons or on their way to those prisons right now.
At various Western conferences and forums in recent years, some of these dissidents even succeeded in gaining the ear of leaders of the free world. They were greeted with sincere expressions of sympathy and support -- but also with silent skepticism. Surely their assessments of the Iranian situation were unreliable at best. Heroic they undoubtedly were, but objective? After all, they lacked access to classified information, to satellite photography and the other tools of modern intelligence-gathering. They could not see the whole picture.Every totalitarian society consists of three groups: true believers, double-thinkers and dissidents. In every totalitarian regime, no matter its cultural or geographical circumstances, the majority undergo a conversion over time from true belief in the revolutionary message into double-thinking. They no longer believe in the regime but are too scared to say so. Then there are the dissidents -- pioneers who dare to cross the line between double-thinking and everything that lies on the other side. In doing so, they first internalize, then articulate and finally act on the innermost feelings of the nation.
Now it turns out that, like their predecessors in the Soviet Union, they were right.
How is it that dissidents rotting in the gulag were able to predict, many years earlier, not only when but how the Soviet Union would collapse -- something that escaped all the world's scholars and intelligence agencies alike? Andrei Amalrik's book, "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?," published underground in 1969, is only one of many examples of such predictions. How did the experts miss it? The reason is simple.
People in free societies watching massive military parades or vociferous displays of love for the leaders of totalitarian regimes often conclude, "Well, that's their mentality; there's nothing we can do about it." Thus they and their leaders miss what is readily grasped by local dissidents attuned to what is happening on the ground: the spectacle of a nation of double-thinkers slowly or rapidly approaching a condition of open dissent.
To see the telltale signs, sometimes it helps to have experienced totalitarianism firsthand. More than once in recent years, former Soviet citizens returning from a visit to Iran have told me how much Iranian society reminded them of the final stages of Soviet communism. Their testimony was what persuaded me to write almost five years ago that Iran was extraordinary for the speed with which, in the span of a single generation, a citizenry had made the transition from true belief in the revolutionary promise into disaffection and double-thinking. Could dissent be far behind?
This suggests another notable fact about present-day Iran. In Moscow in the 1970s, demonstrations organized by dissidents in an effort to attract the world's attention would often consist of no more than five to 10 individuals. Otherwise, the KGB would find out about the demonstrations in advance. They would last no more than five minutes. That was the longest we could last before the KGB would come, arrest us and ship the less fortunate to Siberia. Our main objective was to make certain that at least one foreign journalist was present so that, the next day, at least one Western news source would come out with a story that could in turn elicit a chain reaction of more and greater press attention and, we hoped, a vocal Western response.
This week, there were hundreds of thousands on the streets of Tehran, with the entire world following them in real time. My assistant, sitting in Jerusalem, received daily updates on Facebook from two dozen Iranian friends before they set out to demonstrate and again on their return. One can only hope that, in the White House and at 10 Downing Street, the leaders of the free world are as well connected as my assistant.
But will those leaders act? With all their sympathy for peoples striving for freedom, Western governments are fearful of imperiling actual or hoped-for relations with the world's ayatollahs, generals, general secretaries and other types of dictators -- partners, so it is thought, in maintaining political stability. But this is a fallacy. Democracy's allies in the struggle for peace and security are the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran who, with consummate bravery, have crossed the line between the world of double-think and the world of free men and women.
Listen to them, and you will hear nothing more, and nothing less, than what you your- self know to be the true hope of every human being on Earth. Listen to them and you may be amazed, but you will never again be surprised.
Natan Sharansky spent nine years in the Soviet gulag. He is chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Problems of Democracy
Democracy is an incredibly difficult form of government to have. Throughout the years I have come to certain conclusions about this "least worst" form of government. Two topics that I have been thinking about are transparency and growth. Below are my thoughts about these topics. As always, let me know what you think!
Transparency is a hallmark of a good government and often times it requires that the government release potentially embarrassing items. The Obama Administration recently released memos and photos about the acts of "enhanced interrogation methods" and they will probably have more documents released in the future. I am of the opinion that a transparent and accountable government requires that, even though it might produce a backlash among Middle Eastern countries. The stains and dirty laundry of our past ought to be revealed, debated and examined. In addition to the memos, the outcome of the interrogations should also be fully revealed (within reason, not all of the intelligence can be fully revealed only a few years after the fact). The American people should be informed to an extent. Sadly, the hyper partisan nature of political debates and the constant barrage of infotainment journalism on the cable news channels will not provide a true quiet place to think, deliberate and decide on the proper course of action for our country.
Another issue that democracy encounters is in regards to growth and the ability to compete with authoritarian regimes. Fareed Zakaria's book "The Post-American World" shows that democratic India has many more hurdles in the way of it and economically flourishing than the authoritarian China. China can build large projects to advance growth with limited opposition in a short period of time. India has such a diverse and democratic system that there is bound to be several roadblocks to complete modernization. Stability produces (and needs) a slow, conservative growth pattern. China can and does grow quickly, but it does not cause a true societal transformation. India is being made by its diverse, vibrant society with the private sector causing a good chunk of the growth (Does this sound familiar?). Ultimately, the societal makeup of a country needs to drive the state, not the state driving society.
Transparency is a hallmark of a good government and often times it requires that the government release potentially embarrassing items. The Obama Administration recently released memos and photos about the acts of "enhanced interrogation methods" and they will probably have more documents released in the future. I am of the opinion that a transparent and accountable government requires that, even though it might produce a backlash among Middle Eastern countries. The stains and dirty laundry of our past ought to be revealed, debated and examined. In addition to the memos, the outcome of the interrogations should also be fully revealed (within reason, not all of the intelligence can be fully revealed only a few years after the fact). The American people should be informed to an extent. Sadly, the hyper partisan nature of political debates and the constant barrage of infotainment journalism on the cable news channels will not provide a true quiet place to think, deliberate and decide on the proper course of action for our country.
______________________
Another issue that democracy encounters is in regards to growth and the ability to compete with authoritarian regimes. Fareed Zakaria's book "The Post-American World" shows that democratic India has many more hurdles in the way of it and economically flourishing than the authoritarian China. China can build large projects to advance growth with limited opposition in a short period of time. India has such a diverse and democratic system that there is bound to be several roadblocks to complete modernization. Stability produces (and needs) a slow, conservative growth pattern. China can and does grow quickly, but it does not cause a true societal transformation. India is being made by its diverse, vibrant society with the private sector causing a good chunk of the growth (Does this sound familiar?). Ultimately, the societal makeup of a country needs to drive the state, not the state driving society.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Social Bonds
President Obama relayed to the American people that the only way this country can become better is through Americans working together for a common good. While this statement is certainly true, it is important to qualify his statement. The way that Americans work together is through the pursuit of their own individual desires. Adam Smith once wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Like Smith's philosophy, the desires of bettering a community for gain is what makes a nation progress. This of course is self-centered but the pursuit of anything is by definition self-centered. Even the pursuit of humility and servanthood is an act of self-centeredness - the person is trying to become better through selflessness. Being self-centered is not necessarily wrong, it is how that self-centerdness is used that makes it either wrong or right.
America was built through the rugged individualism that was a hallmark of its western expansion. But at the same time, the American way of life was forged through the belief that America as a whole was an exceptional nation. A collectivist sense of responsibility was instilled on the people, particularly at the lower levels of community. Whether in small towns or in large cities, ethnic, social, and cultural ghettos brought people together. Whether under the banner of a "melting pot" or a "tossed salad," the diverse people that make up this land has come together under the banner of America. The collectivist mentality has always been a part of the American experience and that mentality has been brilliantly forged with the desires of the individual person.
The American spirit is at its brightest when a governing body acts as passive referee, allowing the people to live as they choose (within reason, of course). The people are bound in a Social Contract, promoting community and direction for the group. The government must enforce this contract as the embodiment of the people's will. By the individual seeking to promote their own interests they will also help others in the process. President Obama is correct when he said that Americans must work together for the common good, but the collectivist mentality must be paired with the individualistic spirit that helped build America.
America was built through the rugged individualism that was a hallmark of its western expansion. But at the same time, the American way of life was forged through the belief that America as a whole was an exceptional nation. A collectivist sense of responsibility was instilled on the people, particularly at the lower levels of community. Whether in small towns or in large cities, ethnic, social, and cultural ghettos brought people together. Whether under the banner of a "melting pot" or a "tossed salad," the diverse people that make up this land has come together under the banner of America. The collectivist mentality has always been a part of the American experience and that mentality has been brilliantly forged with the desires of the individual person.
The American spirit is at its brightest when a governing body acts as passive referee, allowing the people to live as they choose (within reason, of course). The people are bound in a Social Contract, promoting community and direction for the group. The government must enforce this contract as the embodiment of the people's will. By the individual seeking to promote their own interests they will also help others in the process. President Obama is correct when he said that Americans must work together for the common good, but the collectivist mentality must be paired with the individualistic spirit that helped build America.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Solzhenitsyn and the Nature of Man
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor political parties either- but right through every human heart- and through all humans hearts."
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Humanity has long told itself that its nature is good and the philosophies that periodically proliferate are a testament to this. Locke based his philosophy upon this notion, and by extension, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence drew from this idea. The Enlightenment thinkers based their views on human nature through the lenses of progress and the societal evolution of humanity. Humans can work their way into a better society, through logic and reason. While some of their principles do apply in certain instances, it does not pertain to the character of human beings. Although the Constitution provides a phenomenal structure for our nation, it grants extreme limitation of power. The Founders might have had positive views pertaining to man's character but the dynamic nature of the Constitution was created in such a fashion that it limited the chances for corruption and abuses.
Wickedness within societal structure will always remain within the body. Since man is a political animal, as Aristotle noted, every person comes to the table with ambition, for better or for worse. It is by the restrictive nature of "separation of powers" that the nature of man is limited. Power, of which politics is primarily concerned, is a dangerous item. Lord Acton speaks to this powerfully when he said, "power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely." Military dictators and persuasive orators might be beneficial in certain aspects of societal growth, but power concentrated in a few hands tends to pervert the reformer, no matter how principled. People of great character like George Washington comes around rarely. Washington's ambition and dreams of being an American Cincinnatus were rooted within his character. The rare exception to the rule does not and should not counter the general rule and axiom of Lord Acton.
Is mankind's situation as dire as Hobbes' philosophy of life being "nasty, broodish and short"? In short, no. Men also have a disposition to perform incredible good. Admittedly, it is a paradox. Humanity is neither good nor are we 100% rotten to the core. Rays of hope glisten throughout the mired soul of man. Out of the Holocaust arises tales of heroism. Out of the the Rwandan genocide stories of courage dot the landscape of despair. Human beings can be wicked beyond compare or just and kind to their fellow man. It is a paradox that is shown throughout history. The propensity of evil is great within men and women, but goodness can occur. Glimpses of what could have been can appear. Solzhenitsyn was correct when he stated that the dividing wall of good and evil runs its course through the hearts of men and women. Hopefully that dividing line allows more room for the good side to flourish.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Lilies that Fester
The Dark Knight is one of the great movies of the early 21st Century. Phenomenal acting and eternal themes are woven throughout the dark tale. These themes can touch any discerning viewer and cause them to pause and reflect. Although there was a phenomenal performance from Heath Ledger in the role of the Joker, the most impacting character on me would be Harvey Dent. For me, the most powerful undercurrent is the corruption of the good person and their decline into a moral abyss. The promise and purpose to bring justice to the world is so appealing, especially for someone who has interest in the political sphere. Dent was a phenomenal man who turned into a corrupt villain. A fallen moral hero.
The landscape of life is strewn with fallen heroes. Great moral leaders are stripped of admiration, taken down by their own faults. There used to be a time in America where people venerated presidents, pastors and powerful people. Now, these groups are viewed with outright or subtle disdain. Trust has evaporated because of negligence on the part of these leaders. Only the "true believers" find themselves following personalities with reckless abandon. Our skepticism has only been reinforced with the postmodernist philosophy that destroys all truth and teaches a generation to disregard all principles behind a flawed leader. Often times, the stupidity of a leader is the cause of the decline in leadership and trust within society. The larger a lion he or she might be, the more spectacular the fall.
As William Shakespeare once said, "lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds." A good man who chooses to forsake the right path for the path of darkness are by far the worst of creatures. As C.S. Lewis once noted, "of all bad men religious bad men are the worst. Of all created beings the wickedest is one who originally stood in the immediate presence of God." Even before time, Lucifer was the most beautiful of angels, powerful beyond compare. It tore creation away from its true purpose and cast the realm into constant warfare. The most beautiful angel perverted life and helped provoke rebellion.
Lewis was right, religious bad men are by far the worst of all men. Wickedness must be restrained as much as possible. That is why the American system has been devised so ingeniously to constrain the ability of man's ambition. Although it is deeply flawed, it does a tremendous job to slow abject corruption. Of course my cynical friends would say otherwise, but the Constitutional framework has been organized in such a manner that it ushered in an era of political stability, even when opposite ideologies took power from each other (with a minor exception in the 1860's...). May the tale of Dent remind us all how precious integrity is and how it must be zealously guarded against corruption. We all have a role to play in life, may it be one marked by integrity.
The landscape of life is strewn with fallen heroes. Great moral leaders are stripped of admiration, taken down by their own faults. There used to be a time in America where people venerated presidents, pastors and powerful people. Now, these groups are viewed with outright or subtle disdain. Trust has evaporated because of negligence on the part of these leaders. Only the "true believers" find themselves following personalities with reckless abandon. Our skepticism has only been reinforced with the postmodernist philosophy that destroys all truth and teaches a generation to disregard all principles behind a flawed leader. Often times, the stupidity of a leader is the cause of the decline in leadership and trust within society. The larger a lion he or she might be, the more spectacular the fall.
As William Shakespeare once said, "lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds." A good man who chooses to forsake the right path for the path of darkness are by far the worst of creatures. As C.S. Lewis once noted, "of all bad men religious bad men are the worst. Of all created beings the wickedest is one who originally stood in the immediate presence of God." Even before time, Lucifer was the most beautiful of angels, powerful beyond compare. It tore creation away from its true purpose and cast the realm into constant warfare. The most beautiful angel perverted life and helped provoke rebellion.
Lewis was right, religious bad men are by far the worst of all men. Wickedness must be restrained as much as possible. That is why the American system has been devised so ingeniously to constrain the ability of man's ambition. Although it is deeply flawed, it does a tremendous job to slow abject corruption. Of course my cynical friends would say otherwise, but the Constitutional framework has been organized in such a manner that it ushered in an era of political stability, even when opposite ideologies took power from each other (with a minor exception in the 1860's...). May the tale of Dent remind us all how precious integrity is and how it must be zealously guarded against corruption. We all have a role to play in life, may it be one marked by integrity.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Bipartisanship
What is bipartisanship? This questions came to the forefront of my mind during the recent House debate of the stimulus package. Is it really being partisan if the proposed legislation is the antithesis of one's beliefs? Is the spirit of bipartisanship the equivalent of rolling over for the majority party or is it being cordial and agreeing to disagree? I would say that it is the latter. Working together is important, but if the intended goals of party A is not in the interest of the intended goals of party B, why should party B acquiesce? Opposition members are not being obstructionists by not voting for legislation that can be overwhelmingly passed. Pres. Obama reaching out to the GOP conference is wonderful, but the outreach can be embraced while the party simultaneously votes against Obama's plan.
The spirit of bipartisanship that Pres. Obama is trying to usher in is admirable, but if the definition of bipartisanship is to merely roll over than call me partisan. Why can't we agree to disagree? That is the spirit that we need in the country, not hotheaded anger against opposite ideology. Working together to accomplish a better future while simultaneously realizing that there are some issues that will never bear witness to both sides coming together.
The spirit of bipartisanship that Pres. Obama is trying to usher in is admirable, but if the definition of bipartisanship is to merely roll over than call me partisan. Why can't we agree to disagree? That is the spirit that we need in the country, not hotheaded anger against opposite ideology. Working together to accomplish a better future while simultaneously realizing that there are some issues that will never bear witness to both sides coming together.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
A Conservative Perspective on Pres. Obama
As I sit here on the dawn of the Obama administration, I must clarify one important issue for my conservative friends. The inauguration of Barack Obama is not the end of conservatism, far from it! Conservatism as a political movement will regroup and march forward into the annals of time and ideas. Conservatism, as a traditional philosophy, has been underlined and emphasized by the election of Pres. Obama. Now please let me explain.
Traditional conservatism meant that the adherent ought to hold onto something, a conserving of the past if you will. It is a philosophically rooted within the writings of Edmund Burke and furthered through people like William Buckley and other contemporaries. Although many view it with a vague notion as "anti-progress" (which is certainly the case with many nostalgia laden individuals), conservatism seeks to stop people in their tracks and think about this "progress" that people proclaim. Drawing from the past, they institute a core system of beliefs into current policies, this system is called First Principles. These principles are ideals and should be lived up to and we should strive for them every generation. For Americans, the unique declaration that boldly proclaimed that "all men are created equal" speaks resoundingly in the face of injustice and hatred. Although the nation did not live up to its ideals, the unjust nature of the government needed to be aligned with the first principles.
America has had a mixed history, mired by the blatant ignorance of the truth laid down through natural law. The truth that were self evident needed to be rediscovered and obeyed through the trials of bloodstained lands of Antietam and Atlanta. The truths needed to be proclaimed through the teaching of preachers and the example of civilly disobedient citizens. As St. Augustine reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all, many parts of our history had perversions of the truth that all men are created equal. We are fashioned in the image of God and that similar nature warrants equality. To be opposed to this is to be in flagrant violation of natural and fundamental law. Without this sure foundation, the notion of equality is left in a precarious state, left to the whims of the majority.
President Obama, in a way, captures this ideal. He is a strong symbol that clearly shows the ideals of the founding are true. All men can become presidents and leaders. All women can make a difference in this great nation, even amidst bigotry, whether soft or institutionalized. Pres. Obama's story is uniquely American. Throughhardwork , persistence and personal application, anyone can make it, that is the fruit of traditional conservatism. Perfect equality will never be realized in a fallen world, but that should not stop us from trying. Together, we can rise up and make this a better place. Come, we have much work to do.
Traditional conservatism meant that the adherent ought to hold onto something, a conserving of the past if you will. It is a philosophically rooted within the writings of Edmund Burke and furthered through people like William Buckley and other contemporaries. Although many view it with a vague notion as "anti-progress" (which is certainly the case with many nostalgia laden individuals), conservatism seeks to stop people in their tracks and think about this "progress" that people proclaim. Drawing from the past, they institute a core system of beliefs into current policies, this system is called First Principles. These principles are ideals and should be lived up to and we should strive for them every generation. For Americans, the unique declaration that boldly proclaimed that "all men are created equal" speaks resoundingly in the face of injustice and hatred. Although the nation did not live up to its ideals, the unjust nature of the government needed to be aligned with the first principles.
America has had a mixed history, mired by the blatant ignorance of the truth laid down through natural law. The truth that were self evident needed to be rediscovered and obeyed through the trials of bloodstained lands of Antietam and Atlanta. The truths needed to be proclaimed through the teaching of preachers and the example of civilly disobedient citizens. As St. Augustine reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all, many parts of our history had perversions of the truth that all men are created equal. We are fashioned in the image of God and that similar nature warrants equality. To be opposed to this is to be in flagrant violation of natural and fundamental law. Without this sure foundation, the notion of equality is left in a precarious state, left to the whims of the majority.
President Obama, in a way, captures this ideal. He is a strong symbol that clearly shows the ideals of the founding are true. All men can become presidents and leaders. All women can make a difference in this great nation, even amidst bigotry, whether soft or institutionalized. Pres. Obama's story is uniquely American. Throughhardwork , persistence and personal application, anyone can make it, that is the fruit of traditional conservatism. Perfect equality will never be realized in a fallen world, but that should not stop us from trying. Together, we can rise up and make this a better place. Come, we have much work to do.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Newsweek and Religion
Newsweek recently published a cover story that sought to outline the disagreements between proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage. However, Newsweek's story hardly was the bastion of journalistic objectivity. Instead, the magazine created an opinion piece that sought to disguise itself as a news story seeking to discredit "fundamentalists." I am not upset that the weekly became an opinion paper, I am upset that the weekly did not accurately represent their opponent's views. Their description of the views of evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons and others were not even remotely accurate. While there certainly were bad arguments on the side of Prop 8, Newsweek disregarded the clear statements of Natural Law thinking and the traditional thought of the Church. The writer selectively picked and twisted words in order to discredit the proponents of Prop 8. This was a blatant attempt to discredit an opponent by mocking them and not defeating them through rational debate.
Newsweek did not delineate clearly, they ignored thoughtful arguments and promoted murky philosophy. The author and Religion section editor Lisa Miller wrote from a position of pure emotion and unfounded accusations. Of course, what they might lacked in rationale surely was amplified in slogans and protest. Christianity Today proposed three possible interpretations about Newsweek's creative essay,
Newsweek did not delineate clearly, they ignored thoughtful arguments and promoted murky philosophy. The author and Religion section editor Lisa Miller wrote from a position of pure emotion and unfounded accusations. Of course, what they might lacked in rationale surely was amplified in slogans and protest. Christianity Today proposed three possible interpretations about Newsweek's creative essay,
[The article] could mean that Meacham and Miller (the editor and author, respectively) are simply ignorant of the nuanced and careful biblical arguments that religious conservatives have made. But this is doubtful, since as journalists of the topic, they have surely been immersed in the literature.In a society such as ours, it is incredibly important to have clarity. I have an obligation to not misrepresent a differing view with the dubious intention of mocking that side. While humor and satire is powerful, seemingly ignorant claims must be refuted by both sides and accuracy must be the aim of all the citizens. Labeling someone as hateful because of an argument does not bring clarity. Good people could have honest disagreements. It is a shame that if one disagrees they will be immediately labeled as hateful or bigoted. Our society thrives on debate and disagreements, that is what makes this nation great. Despite our differences, we remain as a single nation. We must have clarity, labeling people as hateful people because of differences does not help society. We, as a society, must be willing to sit down and have a deep conversation about issues. We cannot live in a intellectual ghetto, instead we must immerse ourselves in competing ideas. Americans must pursue honesty and intellectual honesty, sadly Newsweek did not pursue those goals.
It could suggest they simply don't understand the subtleties of the biblical arguments. But this can't be, because they are clearly bright people in other respects.
Or it means they have found themselves hamstrung by the richer, nuanced, and thoughtful biblical defense of traditional marriage. And they find themselves utterly incapable of responding to it on its own terms.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Reemergence of Evil
In the past few months I have been focused on US politics. Debating Iraqi withdrawal strategies, economic plans and social issues have been hot topics in political circles and have preoccupied my mind. These topics, however, have shifted focus from one of the most important issues of our time- evil. There is evil in the world and it attacks defenseless people for the sole purpose of destruction. This evil has a face, and it is the face of twisted ideology. This ideology takes the words of a religion and uses it to enact destruction. These terrorists use the name of Islam to combat the infidels, and by that very definition every non-Muslim is a target. However, that narrow description has broadened, even fellow Muslims have become acceptable targets. Islamic fundamentalism is an anathema to the world, including the Muslim civilization. This anathema must be universally confronted.
The terrorists in Mumbai sought to destroy as many lives as possible, killing tourists and workers at random. These murderous beings also sought to target a Jewish cultural center. In a place that has an incredibly small Jewish population, these terrorists murdered a rabbi and his wife. Of course, we do not have to discuss the ancient belief in Jew hating (we can save that discussion for another day), but we should discuss the evil in the world. There are theories that these acts have been prompted by American foreign policy (which I agree, in part). However, US foreign policy can only provide so much room for excuse. Bali, Turkey, India, Jordan and other traditional non-Western nations have been targeted for retribution. As Fareed Zakaria said on CNN recently, we must place the blame first on the terrorists. Regardless if there were ties from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, the perpetrators deserve our full wrath. They are the ones who attacked defenseless tourists and civilians. They are the cowards and they are the root source of this evil.
In the remembrance of the murderous acts in Mumbai, we must regain vigilance against this evil. The Western, Muslim, Hindu and Far Eastern nations must stand against this evil and work to eradicate it. This will have to be a blend of military, economic and diplomatic solution. Hard Power must be joined with Soft Power to create a lasting solution. Our military might must be used with caution and our culturally based Soft Power should be deployed to its fullest extent. The first step that we must take is the realization that it exists and then work to counteract it. We must call cowardly acts like these what it is, murderous evil. If we do not achieve intellectual and moral clarity than we will never win.
The terrorists in Mumbai sought to destroy as many lives as possible, killing tourists and workers at random. These murderous beings also sought to target a Jewish cultural center. In a place that has an incredibly small Jewish population, these terrorists murdered a rabbi and his wife. Of course, we do not have to discuss the ancient belief in Jew hating (we can save that discussion for another day), but we should discuss the evil in the world. There are theories that these acts have been prompted by American foreign policy (which I agree, in part). However, US foreign policy can only provide so much room for excuse. Bali, Turkey, India, Jordan and other traditional non-Western nations have been targeted for retribution. As Fareed Zakaria said on CNN recently, we must place the blame first on the terrorists. Regardless if there were ties from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, the perpetrators deserve our full wrath. They are the ones who attacked defenseless tourists and civilians. They are the cowards and they are the root source of this evil.
In the remembrance of the murderous acts in Mumbai, we must regain vigilance against this evil. The Western, Muslim, Hindu and Far Eastern nations must stand against this evil and work to eradicate it. This will have to be a blend of military, economic and diplomatic solution. Hard Power must be joined with Soft Power to create a lasting solution. Our military might must be used with caution and our culturally based Soft Power should be deployed to its fullest extent. The first step that we must take is the realization that it exists and then work to counteract it. We must call cowardly acts like these what it is, murderous evil. If we do not achieve intellectual and moral clarity than we will never win.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Power of Words
Words are incredibly powerful. Clear articulation of ideas can inspire revolution, free the enslaved, rally a dejected army or challenge others to greatness. The English language has many colorful and important words that paints a picture and, if mastered, can move legitimate mountains. Unfortunately, political campaigns choose words that best suit their particular interests and activist groups use loaded terms to slur their opponents. It is important that people be cautious in their choice of words and bring powerful ideas to the table instead of loaded rhetoric. It also important to have these powerful ideas grounded in reality. As Wilfred McClay wrote in his article "The Danger of Abstract Words" in First Things:
When we devalue a terms meaning by using them inappropriately the speaker merely alienates their opponents and adds a layer of unneeded complexity to the dialogue. The term 'Nazi' is thrown around so often and is applied so broadly that it stifles legitimate conversations. When talking about words, we must look to the incredible orators of the past to gain a better understanding about dialogue and statements. Martin Luther King was able to articulate ideas and used words with power, clarity, and meaning. As Dr. King said in his famous I Have a Dream Speech:
That caution is especially appropriate in a modern democratic culture, and so it is not surprising that Tocqueville had a keen awareness of it. “Men living in democratic countries, then, are apt to entertain unsettled ideas, and they require loose expressions to convey them. As they never know whether the idea they express today will be appropriate to the new position they may occupy tomorrow, they naturally acquire a liking for abstract terms.” The chief virtue of an abstraction, he observed, is that it is “like a box with a false bottom; you may put in it what ideas you please, and take them out again without being observed.”It is important to note that the Obama campaign was not the only culprit of using generic terms. While the Obama campaign used the generic words of 'hope' and 'change' to argue for their victory, the McCain campaign used words that boast populist sentiments, 'elitist' and 'socialist' are just two out of many words. It is incredibly expedient to use broad words than to advocate for a clear worldview. When the word Nazi is constantly used, one loses the sense of evil that the ideology embodied. When the powerful nature of love is devalued through 'free love,' the word is diffused.
When we devalue a terms meaning by using them inappropriately the speaker merely alienates their opponents and adds a layer of unneeded complexity to the dialogue. The term 'Nazi' is thrown around so often and is applied so broadly that it stifles legitimate conversations. When talking about words, we must look to the incredible orators of the past to gain a better understanding about dialogue and statements. Martin Luther King was able to articulate ideas and used words with power, clarity, and meaning. As Dr. King said in his famous I Have a Dream Speech:
In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”Dr. King used words to advance a cause. He drew upon the principles of the past and progressed forward with them (conservatism at its most basic philosophical form). He could have inflamed his opponents by using loaded terms. Instead Dr. King brought people together with a cohesive argument. That is what our postmodern society must regain. Words are powerful and they should be used with respect.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Post-Election Thoughts
Religion and politics are two things that people should not talk about with strangers. I do not have that option, because politics is something that I do and religion is something that I love. Although I do not have the luxury of remaining in an aloof state, it is important for anyone who dabbles in either area to learn to compartmentalize certain aspects of those passionate subjects. In an environment that is filled with partisanship and rampant opinions, it is important to not become consumed by something, especially politics. Political junkies must live a balanced, whole life. Even when your particular team loses an election you have to make yourself not feel distraught. Of course you should not bury the emotion completely, but you should not let it drive your life. A balanced life is something that every political activist and thinker must develop, and is something that I constantly must remember.
Dennis Prager, an intellectual mentor of mine, mentioned a quote that has greatly impacted his life. The rabbinic statement goes: "It's not up to you to complete the task, but you're not free to desist of trying." It is not up to an individual to make the world a perfect place, but that excuse does not give us the right to stop trying. In every instance, Utopians always make the world an evil one, because it is not up to us to make things possible and to obtain a just society. Whether in Revolutionary France or in communist countries throughout the world, the desires for imposing economic equality always have turned foul. Even within religious circles, we must realize that perfection will not come about in this age, because our nature will not change. The three monotheistic religions all believe in coming perfection. Jews believe in a coming Messiah, Christians believe in the Second Coming of their Christ and Muslims believe in the fulfillment of their scriptures. The broken nature of mankind will always be present and it is important for every person to realize that. Moses did not get into the "promised land" and neither shall we.
Utopia literally means nowhere. Those who want to make the promised land reality on earth inadvertently create hell on earth. We must remember that we cannot transform earth, but that does not mean that we must stop trying. We cannot foster a mentality that does not help the weak simply because "the poor will be with you always." We cannot live for the present, instead we must try within reason to make things better on earth. In a theological perspective, we must work for the Kingdom of God with the comprehension that perfection will never occur. In short, we should always work towards a better world.
We also must realize that "this too shall pass." A certain political party or ideology will not obtain power and perpetually keep it. You accept the loss and you continue to fight for your values. The Republican Party was resoundingly rejected at the ballot boxes and that rejection should prompt people within the party to think about what that means for them. It is important for a minority party to ask the powerful question of "where did we go wrong?" Was it in your tone, the denouncing of everyone else as elitist or un-American? Was it the concept of limited government turned expansive government that propelled the GOP into an abyss? The party must then direct their course towards becoming a purer conservative party, move towards the center as a Progressive Republican Party or take a dramatically different course. (Simply resurrecting Ronald Reagan will not solve the problem, as I said in a previous post) Ideas have consequences and they should be measured and debated.
Aristotle was correct when he once noted that man by nature is a political animal. That same political drive, however, should not destroy our broader being. Enjoy life! There's more to life than politics. We need to compartmentalize our political frustrations and not allow it to overflow into our other interests. It goes with the broader maxim that we should not be held hostage to emotion, instead we need to learn to be content. We need to learn to be happy and practice that ability. Learning to live with passion and purpose is essential; after all, politics is only one piece of that life. We must become whole people and learn to act accordingly. We must redeem the time and work to bring justice to the world.
Dennis Prager, an intellectual mentor of mine, mentioned a quote that has greatly impacted his life. The rabbinic statement goes: "It's not up to you to complete the task, but you're not free to desist of trying." It is not up to an individual to make the world a perfect place, but that excuse does not give us the right to stop trying. In every instance, Utopians always make the world an evil one, because it is not up to us to make things possible and to obtain a just society. Whether in Revolutionary France or in communist countries throughout the world, the desires for imposing economic equality always have turned foul. Even within religious circles, we must realize that perfection will not come about in this age, because our nature will not change. The three monotheistic religions all believe in coming perfection. Jews believe in a coming Messiah, Christians believe in the Second Coming of their Christ and Muslims believe in the fulfillment of their scriptures. The broken nature of mankind will always be present and it is important for every person to realize that. Moses did not get into the "promised land" and neither shall we.
Utopia literally means nowhere. Those who want to make the promised land reality on earth inadvertently create hell on earth. We must remember that we cannot transform earth, but that does not mean that we must stop trying. We cannot foster a mentality that does not help the weak simply because "the poor will be with you always." We cannot live for the present, instead we must try within reason to make things better on earth. In a theological perspective, we must work for the Kingdom of God with the comprehension that perfection will never occur. In short, we should always work towards a better world.
We also must realize that "this too shall pass." A certain political party or ideology will not obtain power and perpetually keep it. You accept the loss and you continue to fight for your values. The Republican Party was resoundingly rejected at the ballot boxes and that rejection should prompt people within the party to think about what that means for them. It is important for a minority party to ask the powerful question of "where did we go wrong?" Was it in your tone, the denouncing of everyone else as elitist or un-American? Was it the concept of limited government turned expansive government that propelled the GOP into an abyss? The party must then direct their course towards becoming a purer conservative party, move towards the center as a Progressive Republican Party or take a dramatically different course. (Simply resurrecting Ronald Reagan will not solve the problem, as I said in a previous post) Ideas have consequences and they should be measured and debated.
Aristotle was correct when he once noted that man by nature is a political animal. That same political drive, however, should not destroy our broader being. Enjoy life! There's more to life than politics. We need to compartmentalize our political frustrations and not allow it to overflow into our other interests. It goes with the broader maxim that we should not be held hostage to emotion, instead we need to learn to be content. We need to learn to be happy and practice that ability. Learning to live with passion and purpose is essential; after all, politics is only one piece of that life. We must become whole people and learn to act accordingly. We must redeem the time and work to bring justice to the world.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Why Proposition 8 Matters
Proposition 8 has provoked extreme emotions on both sides of the issue. It is generally shaped as being about tolerance and equality on one side or about morality and tradition on the other. While they are polar opposites, it is important to realize that both sides have boasted faulty arguments. There are agents of intolerance within both camps, whether intolerant of free speech or hateful of a different lifestyle. The most important thing within a pluralistic society is the ability to construct sound arguments and not get caught up in overwhelming emotions. Please hear me out and let me explain why I endorse Proposition 8.
It is very important to outline what is marriage and what is the role that it plays in society. Marriage is typically outlined by society and it is shaped by the culture, whether through religious or legal customs. Historically, cultures have outlined that marriage is between people of the opposite sex- regardless of an Eastern or Western philosophy. However now, this is seen as both hateful and bigoted. The archaic understanding of marriage should be modified, after all racial matters were decided through government intervention. Although the racial legacy of the USA has been tainted with slavery and hostile welcoming of immigrant groups, the California court's decision in the beginning of this year cannot be equated with the rejection of interracial marriage. The racial tension and restrictions were morally deplorable and were against legitimate moral teachings. The current debate cannot be honestly tied to the past struggles on moral grounds for clarity's sake. Although marriage between two people of different faiths have been banned periodically throughout history, that ban has not been on racial grounds. Since people of different ethnic groups could convert, interracial marriage was not condemned within religious texts. Certainly the question of American bans on interracial dating and marriage within ultra-conservative groups is often raised as a parallel. In order to rebut this erroneous claim I will turn to a quote from columnist and thinker Dennis Prager,
It is very important to outline what is marriage and what is the role that it plays in society. Marriage is typically outlined by society and it is shaped by the culture, whether through religious or legal customs. Historically, cultures have outlined that marriage is between people of the opposite sex- regardless of an Eastern or Western philosophy. However now, this is seen as both hateful and bigoted. The archaic understanding of marriage should be modified, after all racial matters were decided through government intervention. Although the racial legacy of the USA has been tainted with slavery and hostile welcoming of immigrant groups, the California court's decision in the beginning of this year cannot be equated with the rejection of interracial marriage. The racial tension and restrictions were morally deplorable and were against legitimate moral teachings. The current debate cannot be honestly tied to the past struggles on moral grounds for clarity's sake. Although marriage between two people of different faiths have been banned periodically throughout history, that ban has not been on racial grounds. Since people of different ethnic groups could convert, interracial marriage was not condemned within religious texts. Certainly the question of American bans on interracial dating and marriage within ultra-conservative groups is often raised as a parallel. In order to rebut this erroneous claim I will turn to a quote from columnist and thinker Dennis Prager,
"American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side."
Certainly my libertarian friends will object with the limited concept of imposing morality on other people. I want to be perfectly clear that it is really impossible to not impose your worldview on other people. Even the belief that all beliefs should be tolerated and debated is imposing one's belief on someone else. In other words, there is no such thing as objectivity or universal acceptance. Some compassionate people might say that the rejection of this proposition would be a reinstatement of human rights. After all, Thomas Jefferson once penned, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Human rights are applicable to all people, and through the vigilance of the state, people should be protected. Although perfect equality will not happen due to the natural condition of humanity, it does not mean that we should not strive for legal equality. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should receive and continue to receive equal legal rights. The legal benefits between my wife and I should be granted for two partners through civil unions. There are rights that can be given but do not call it marriage. Prejudice should be fought against and tolerance of other lifestyles should be sought, but an abandonment of all societal ties for the sake of 'progress' must not be attempted.
One of the classic arguments in support of same-sex marriage that must be addressed is that we must support same-sex marriage because a heterosexual marriage will not be impacted by a homosexual marriage. Congratulations on making a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the debate, no one ever said that it would. Even in my conversations with the most conservative of Evangelicals this topic does not come up. We are not discussing individual marriages, instead we are talking about foundations of society. The elimination of the mores that bind us to our foundation is precarious and that is what this debate is about. Of course, advocating for marriage between a man and a woman is now the equivalent of being a sexist or racist. And soon, I am certain, it will be a hate crime. Even though one might have all the love and respect for someone of a different sexual orientation, the sentiments that only a man and a woman should marry is hateful. The playing of the hate card is intellectually dishonest and blackmail. If everyone else is labeled hateful by you if they oppose a measure, than you are promulgating hate.
Marriage is at the very foundation of civilization. Society lives and dies through the ability to sustain its culture and grow as a people by reproducing. Three traditional views on marriage is that marriage a social contract, sacrament and/or a legal binding. According to my Protestant worldview (with a bit of Catholic influences), the issue leans more towards all of the above. Marriage redeems society and should be a blessing unto it, through the dynamic of two different people coming together-- building society through stability and furthering society in childbearing. This (potential) ability is what sets marriage apart from other relationships. If it is a purely legal matter, than allow the society to legitimately decide the definition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Marriage has been chosen from within society and is bestowed on whom it chooses.
Words are incredibly important. The description of a piece of legislation as either a bailout or an economic stabilization plan could cause significantly different public reaction. With this constitutional amendment the phrasing could make all the difference. The proposition originally read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The changed wording should melt even the hardest of hearts. Attorney General Brown changed the phrasing to manipulate popular sentiment, framing those who oppose gay marriage (even those who have no animosity towards gays) as bigots. Just as O'Brien would famously ask Winston in George Orwell's 1984, many now ask "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" Even if you reply four they will force you to say five. Why? Because up is down and down is up. There is no Truth, morality is dead. After all, we are simply a nation of sheep.
Marriage has always been defined by society, secular or sacred. If society chooses to allow same-sex marriage, then so be it. It should be defined through the ballot box, not through judicial and dishonest actions.
-----------------------------
For more, please see:
The Meaning of Marriage
by John Witte, Jr. in First Things
One of the classic arguments in support of same-sex marriage that must be addressed is that we must support same-sex marriage because a heterosexual marriage will not be impacted by a homosexual marriage. Congratulations on making a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the debate, no one ever said that it would. Even in my conversations with the most conservative of Evangelicals this topic does not come up. We are not discussing individual marriages, instead we are talking about foundations of society. The elimination of the mores that bind us to our foundation is precarious and that is what this debate is about. Of course, advocating for marriage between a man and a woman is now the equivalent of being a sexist or racist. And soon, I am certain, it will be a hate crime. Even though one might have all the love and respect for someone of a different sexual orientation, the sentiments that only a man and a woman should marry is hateful. The playing of the hate card is intellectually dishonest and blackmail. If everyone else is labeled hateful by you if they oppose a measure, than you are promulgating hate.
Marriage is at the very foundation of civilization. Society lives and dies through the ability to sustain its culture and grow as a people by reproducing. Three traditional views on marriage is that marriage a social contract, sacrament and/or a legal binding. According to my Protestant worldview (with a bit of Catholic influences), the issue leans more towards all of the above. Marriage redeems society and should be a blessing unto it, through the dynamic of two different people coming together-- building society through stability and furthering society in childbearing. This (potential) ability is what sets marriage apart from other relationships. If it is a purely legal matter, than allow the society to legitimately decide the definition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Marriage has been chosen from within society and is bestowed on whom it chooses.
Words are incredibly important. The description of a piece of legislation as either a bailout or an economic stabilization plan could cause significantly different public reaction. With this constitutional amendment the phrasing could make all the difference. The proposition originally read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The changed wording should melt even the hardest of hearts. Attorney General Brown changed the phrasing to manipulate popular sentiment, framing those who oppose gay marriage (even those who have no animosity towards gays) as bigots. Just as O'Brien would famously ask Winston in George Orwell's 1984, many now ask "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" Even if you reply four they will force you to say five. Why? Because up is down and down is up. There is no Truth, morality is dead. After all, we are simply a nation of sheep.
Marriage has always been defined by society, secular or sacred. If society chooses to allow same-sex marriage, then so be it. It should be defined through the ballot box, not through judicial and dishonest actions.
-----------------------------
For more, please see:
The Meaning of Marriage
by John Witte, Jr. in First Things
Friday, October 03, 2008
Because Wall Street affects Main Street (Part 3)
Final entry in the "Wall Street impacts Main Street" series.
It is a somber day for the American economy.
Plan Will Save Free Market, Not Destroy It
By REP. JOHN CAMPBELL
This free-market, Milton Friedman devotee, conservative Republican congressman will be voting strongly in favor of the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street. What, you ask? Has the California sun fried my last brain cell?
No. I will vote for this bill because it will likely not cost anything, is not a bailout of anybody and will help every American with a bank account, a job or a retirement plan. It also will save the free market, not weaken it.
Allow me to explain.
The $700 billion figure so often mentioned will not be spent, but actually entirely invested with three different mechanisms to ensure that the taxpayers get all their money back.
First, these "troubled assets" will be purchased at less than the expected net present value of their cash flow. That means taxpayers should make a profit by holding them to maturity.
Second, taxpayers will get warrants to purchase stock in the companies from whom these assets are bought. That is more profit potential if the companies recover.
Third, whoever is president five years from now is required to offer to Congress a proposal to recover from these same companies any net loss incurred by the taxpayers to that point. No investment's return is certain, but this one looks pretty good. It for sure will not cost anything close to $700 billion over time.
Furthermore, you are not bailing out companies when you buy assets from them at 30%-60% of what they paid for the asset. That's a bath, not a bailout.
And they should take a bath. They made an investment decision, and it turned out to be a bad one, so they lose money. The purpose of the purchase plan is to create a market where one does not now exist and allow these companies to move that capital back into productive use in the economy. It is not giving them any kind of deal.
If this bill does not pass and Congress does nothing, Wall Street will suffer for sure. But so will everyone with a retirement plan as those values drop precipitously and their nest egg disappears.
Just imagine a whole week of days like Monday. People with bank accounts or money market funds may find their money inaccessible as the debt markets freeze over. And nonfinancial businesses that rely on short-term borrowing to meet payrolls and finance inventory spikes may be unable to get that credit, resulting in layoffs. In short, we all lose, whether we live in Manhattan or Peoria.
So has the free market failed us and that's why we need the government to take it over in this way?
No again. Free markets work. They are still working. They are rational. But on both sides of any free market transaction are two human beings who are subject to emotional behavior. The market cannot correct for overwhelmingly irrational behavior, whether that behavior is fear and panic or risk-ignoring exuberance.
When the short-term debt of some of the world's most profitable companies has no buyers, that is evidence of widespread fear bordering on panic. The objective of this bill is to remove the object of that fear, the bad mortgage-backed securities, from the market so that rational behavior will return.
In some ways, this bill is more of a free-market solution than other actions that have been taken. The government will not take over any companies here. Even the warrants will be nonvoting. No one will be compelled to sell the government their assets if they don't want to.
Even the "reverse auction" process of establishing pricing for the assets, where sellers submit bids to one buyer rather than the other way around, is a market-based pricing method.
Other ideas are out there to correct this problem. I have seen most of them. None has a better chance than this one to stabilize the credit and equity markets. Furthermore, no other plan has the broad base of political support that this plan has from leaders in both parties.
The credit markets in particular are too fragile. We cannot afford the time delay of starting over.
If we do not pass anything, I shudder to think of how bad things might get as that fear turns to full-fledged panic.
If we pass this plan, some banks and other companies will still fail. The world economy will still struggle and have problems for months if not years to come.
But markets will function again, and we will likely avoid the abyss. That will save our free-market economy, not jeopardize it. I hope and pray that at least 217 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives will see it that way on Friday.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Because Wall Street affects Main Street (Part 2)
I cannot say it any clearer than David Brooks. Unfortunately, much of the GOP is stuck in this perpetual time warp. Wake up! To do nothing is unacceptable and to tout populist ideals is dishonest. If Wall St. fails, it will impact every single person in the US- regardless of class or occupation.
-----------------------------
Revolt of the Nihilists
By DAVID BROOKS
In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis. He understood that his first job was to restore confidence, to give people a sense that somebody was in charge, that something was going to be done.
This generation of political leaders is confronting a similar situation, and, so far, they have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed. Instead, by rejecting the rescue package on Monday, they have made the psychological climate much worse.
George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?
And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.
House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.
Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.
I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.
We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.
What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.
The Congressional plan was nobody’s darling, but it was an effort to assert some authority. It was an effort to alter the psychology of the markets. People don’t trust the banks; the bankers don’t trust each other. It was an effort to address the crisis of authority in Washington. At least it might have stabilized the situation so fundamental reforms of the world’s financial architecture could be undertaken later.
But the 228 House members who voted no have exacerbated the global psychological free fall, and now we have a crisis of political authority on top of the crisis of financial authority.
The only thing now is to try again — to rescue the rescue. There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects. Leaders need to add provisions that would shore up housing prices and directly help mortgage holders. Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Lindsey both have good proposals of the sort that could lead to a plausible majority coalition. Loosening deposit insurance rules would also be nice.
If that doesn’t happen, the world could be in for some tough economic times (the Europeans, apparently, have not even begun to acknowledge their toxic debt) — but also tough political times.
The American century was created by American leadership, which is scarcer than credit just about now.
Revolt of the Nihilists
By DAVID BROOKS
In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis. He understood that his first job was to restore confidence, to give people a sense that somebody was in charge, that something was going to be done.
This generation of political leaders is confronting a similar situation, and, so far, they have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed. Instead, by rejecting the rescue package on Monday, they have made the psychological climate much worse.
George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?
And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.
House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.
Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.
I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.
We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.
What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.
The Congressional plan was nobody’s darling, but it was an effort to assert some authority. It was an effort to alter the psychology of the markets. People don’t trust the banks; the bankers don’t trust each other. It was an effort to address the crisis of authority in Washington. At least it might have stabilized the situation so fundamental reforms of the world’s financial architecture could be undertaken later.
But the 228 House members who voted no have exacerbated the global psychological free fall, and now we have a crisis of political authority on top of the crisis of financial authority.
The only thing now is to try again — to rescue the rescue. There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects. Leaders need to add provisions that would shore up housing prices and directly help mortgage holders. Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Lindsey both have good proposals of the sort that could lead to a plausible majority coalition. Loosening deposit insurance rules would also be nice.
If that doesn’t happen, the world could be in for some tough economic times (the Europeans, apparently, have not even begun to acknowledge their toxic debt) — but also tough political times.
The American century was created by American leadership, which is scarcer than credit just about now.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Freedom and Responsibility
Freedom is a very dangerous thing. Freedom grants the ability for anyone to follow their own desires and motives. However, is complete freedom ever truly free? I wrote in a previous post that,
The greatest historical example I can give comes from the pivotal era of the Protestant Reformation. Among other things, Martin Luther believed that every person should be able to read the Bible for themselves. This understanding allowed the untrained person to read and think for themselves. Yet, with this freedom came the option for incredible abuse. The Bible could be interpreted erroneously and abused by every reader. The various Protestant denominations splintered more and more, Biblical passages could be interpreted in a variety of ways. With this freedom, came a significant risk of unorthodoxy and incorrect thinking. Nevertheless, this freedom was worth it.
As the below video from the Acton Institute explains, freedom is more than just doing whatever one wants. Freedom is not choosing things arbitrarily, but choosing what makes us better as human beings. Freedom is much more than merely hurling a dart randomly at the wall. Freedom requires us to make correct decisions. A player has the ability and right to press piano keys haphazardly, but is that really the best thing to do? True liberty is doing what is right.
Mankind can never be truly free. Even as a Lockean Liberal, I am bound to the philosophy of personal freedom. This belief drives me to follow those ideals, for better or for worse. We are all ensnared in our ideologies, and only change into some other concept that drives us to walk in that newfound belief.In other words, our beliefs are never fully free. My personal political philosophy is chained to the notion of liberty. Anarchy is not true freedom and relativism is false liberty.
The greatest historical example I can give comes from the pivotal era of the Protestant Reformation. Among other things, Martin Luther believed that every person should be able to read the Bible for themselves. This understanding allowed the untrained person to read and think for themselves. Yet, with this freedom came the option for incredible abuse. The Bible could be interpreted erroneously and abused by every reader. The various Protestant denominations splintered more and more, Biblical passages could be interpreted in a variety of ways. With this freedom, came a significant risk of unorthodoxy and incorrect thinking. Nevertheless, this freedom was worth it.
As the below video from the Acton Institute explains, freedom is more than just doing whatever one wants. Freedom is not choosing things arbitrarily, but choosing what makes us better as human beings. Freedom is much more than merely hurling a dart randomly at the wall. Freedom requires us to make correct decisions. A player has the ability and right to press piano keys haphazardly, but is that really the best thing to do? True liberty is doing what is right.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Civil Discourse
Since I was introduced to the journal First Things, I have been profoundly challenged to go deeper in my faith. This challenge has made me take a stronger stand on incorporating my faith into my broader worldview, both in practical life and political thought. A recent posting on the blog of First Things spoke to an issue that I feel passionately about. Civility within passionate discourse.
The writer quoted from an excerpt from a letter of St. Thomas More to Erasmus, written on June 14th, 1532. St. More wrote:
Congratulations, then, my dear Erasmus, on your outstanding virtuous qualities; however, if on occasion some good person is unsettled and disturbed by some point, even without making a sufficiently serious reason, still do not be chagrined at making accommodations for the pious dispositions of such men. But as for those snapping, growling, malicious fellows, ignore them, and, without faltering, quietly continue to devote yourself to the promotion of intellectual things and the advancement of virtue. (Emphasis mine)
Partisan talk is always appealing. Since the very foundations of civilization, mankind has formed into collective groups. From City-States to Nation States, deep pride in ideals have instilled deep emotions amongst its inhabitants. Within a society, competing ideas and rival groups attempt to rule their government. Ancient Rome boasted soaring orators, Parliamentary England had its great statesmen and Early American history had dynamic debaters. Factional leaders often ranged from mild to bombastic temperament. Nevertheless, passion for various causes were rarely lacking.
One cannot be lost in nostalgia. There were vitriolic characters and vicious attacks. Within the borders of a nation as diverse as ours, it is incredibly important to remember the importance of civility. Different worldviews and assumptions exist, and oftentimes we must disagree without being disagreeable. The two competing mainstream philosophies in the contemporary American political spectrum is conservatism and progressive-liberalism. The presuppositions of both worldviews are immense! Even though there are different foundations, a big culprit in the intolerance and polarization of modern society is the creation of ideological ghettos.
The lack of exposure to other ideas and merely staying within one's own ideology is detrimental to true growth. Caustic language and attacks should not be employed in political debates, all it does is lower the level of communication and push citizens apart. Whether it would be an liberal Olbermann or conservative Savage, vitriolic rants should be replaced with passionate civility. Communicating ideas and advancing causes is the best course for a national group. As Thomas More would say, "as for those snapping, growling, malicious fellows, ignore them, and, without faltering, quietly continue to devote yourself to the promotion of intellectual things and the advancement of virtue." Civility, a functional society depends upon it.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
"Things which are Caesar's and things which are God's. "
I have often wrestled with the notion that Christians should not engage in earthly politics. Some assert that as a sojourner, we should skip the temporal debates and focus directly on "Kingdom work." On the other hand, I firmly believe that the believer has a duty and obligation to engage in their world. We live in this tension of the now and the not yet. We must impact our world, even within the sphere of politics and governing. Richard John Neuhaus in First Things wrote about this issue on his blog. Neuhaus referred to A.D. Lindsay, author of The Modern Democratic State. Lindsay states:
The Christian always knew that he had two loyalties: that if he was to remember the Apostle’s command “to be subject unto the higher powers,” he was also to remember that his duty was “to obey God rather than man.” There are things which are Caesar’s and things which are God’s.
There is a wall separating our faith and government, guarding against theocracy. Although, it is important to remember that one's faith and those values that come through that belief cannot be removed from an individual- they are inextricably tied. It is important to remember as a religious person that there are things that are God's and things that belong to Caesar. Nationalism must not interfere with religious principles. Faith must not be overbearing on government. As a Christian, we have a duty and an obligation to recognize this dichotomy and act accordingly.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Nostalgia and Ideals
The issue of Ronald Reagan and his role in the Republican Party has made me think deeply about my affiliation and philsophy. My conclusion is that we must not be nostalgic, instead we must reinvigorate the narrative of the party. As a Republican, I believe we must retrace our roots and become a 21st Century party, not a retro 1980's one. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels brought about several hushed gasps and raised eyebrows as he lectured a crowd that it was “time to let Ronald Reagan go.” During the GOP primary season Go. Daniels said:
“Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.
It is in my opinion that we must look to the past to move forward. To be conservative is to be cautious and draw from the examples that have gone before us, but we must resist the urge of nostalgia. We should not retreat to a nostalgic era for the love of a particular president (Reagan or Kennedy) or thinker, instead we must have progress. Looking back to the past and remaining conscientious of where we came from is important, but then we must press forward. While we are rooted in our past, we must grow positively as a nation and society. It was incredibly refreshing when I read this column by the Wall Street Journal about Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Part of the article stated:
While Mr. Pawlenty tiptoes around the Bush political legacy, he allows that the party's years in power left it with a "name brand a little damaged and out of fresh ideas." Merely retreating to Reagan nostalgia won't do. "I love Ronald Reagan," says Mr. Pawlenty, who at age 47 came of age during the Reagan years. "But we have to recognize that to voters younger than me he is an historical figure."
I ask him later what lessons he imbibed from Reagan. "He was proudly conservative," he replies, "but we sometimes forget he got things done as governor and president that represented compromises. If today you went to someone and outlined Reagan's record without using his name some conservatives would want to throw him out of the party. But he never wavered on core principles and he made the country a better and more conservative place."
Compromise. Principles. These two words can coincide in governing. The party must look at itself in the mirror and remove the corruption, inconsistencies and bad ideas that have tainted the original principles. We ought to return to the core principles of the Constitution and abide by them. Reagan did great things for the nation and he did some not so great things. Heroes are human beings and make mistakes. Something that should mark an American hero is the drive to make America great and to keep America safe. The GOP has some soul searching to do. Unfortunately, it might not be in time for November.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Power of the Olympic Games
Games truly bring people together. Sporting events can bridge divides and can instill peace, even for a few moments. I believe that the big picture of the Olympics should be reached for, the dream of cooperation and common humanity ought to be sought and promoted.
World War I had some of the worst fighting in history, massive casualties ensued across Europe. However, even in the midst of carnage, Christmas Day bore witness to the common humanity on the Western Front. Central and Allied powers muted fighting for the day in one sector and came together. Ball games, feasting and laughter rang throughout the hellish landscape. In recent times, Cubans and Americans played against each other, the Koreans walked out together twice in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Georgia and Russia were fighting over a breakaway province thousands of miles away from Beijing, yet the two nations had athletes on the medal platform and competed in volleyball. While their armies were locked in conflict, the two athletes were embracing each other. For a few moments, belligerent nations were fellow humans and colleagues.
Of course, there were cases where Arab nations would not compete against an Israeli and boycotts trumped athletics. In this year's Beijing Olympics, North Korea refused to march behind South Korea. Competitive nations sometimes cannot be friendly on the court. Even with the negative examples, the positives outweigh the negatives by a wide margin.
The "Coming Together" of the world does not necessarily mean a New World Order. The realization of our common humanity and openness for dialogue is important. Of course there will be differences and hostilities. Post-nationalism will not occur this century. Its profound impact on nation-states will remain, but something that must grow is the understanding of others history. Cultural knowledge must come about and historical awareness must grow. Differences will continue, but striving to overcome can bring about incredible things. Just look back at Post-War Europe! France and Germany, once bitter enemies, are now friends. Sometimes the impossible is plausible.
World War I had some of the worst fighting in history, massive casualties ensued across Europe. However, even in the midst of carnage, Christmas Day bore witness to the common humanity on the Western Front. Central and Allied powers muted fighting for the day in one sector and came together. Ball games, feasting and laughter rang throughout the hellish landscape. In recent times, Cubans and Americans played against each other, the Koreans walked out together twice in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Georgia and Russia were fighting over a breakaway province thousands of miles away from Beijing, yet the two nations had athletes on the medal platform and competed in volleyball. While their armies were locked in conflict, the two athletes were embracing each other. For a few moments, belligerent nations were fellow humans and colleagues.
Of course, there were cases where Arab nations would not compete against an Israeli and boycotts trumped athletics. In this year's Beijing Olympics, North Korea refused to march behind South Korea. Competitive nations sometimes cannot be friendly on the court. Even with the negative examples, the positives outweigh the negatives by a wide margin.
The "Coming Together" of the world does not necessarily mean a New World Order. The realization of our common humanity and openness for dialogue is important. Of course there will be differences and hostilities. Post-nationalism will not occur this century. Its profound impact on nation-states will remain, but something that must grow is the understanding of others history. Cultural knowledge must come about and historical awareness must grow. Differences will continue, but striving to overcome can bring about incredible things. Just look back at Post-War Europe! France and Germany, once bitter enemies, are now friends. Sometimes the impossible is plausible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
