I have been captivated by U2's song Magnificent for awhile now. I have tried to discover why I relate to the lyrics and have a new theory. I think the reason why the lyrics capture me is the constant cry for something beyond myself, a cry for something more than my own self absorbed life. It plugs me into something greater, "I was born I was born to be with you." (Or as St Augustine would say, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in you.") This song prompts me to connect to a story, a story that infuses me with purpose and vision, a story that comes from the Magnificent. What lyric has captured your attention these days?
Magnificent Magnificent
I was born I was born to be with you In this space and time After that and ever after I haven't had a clue Only to break rhyme This foolishness can leave a heart black and blue
Only love, only love can leave such a mark But only love, only love can heal such a scar
I was born I was born to sing for you I didn’t have a choice but to lift you up And sing whatever song you wanted me to I give you back my voice From the womb my first cry, it was a joyful noise…
Only love, only love can leave such a mark But only love, only love can heal such a scar
Justified till we die, you and I will magnify The Magnificent Magnificent
Only love, only love can leave such a mark But only love, only love unites our hearts
Justified till we die, you and I will magnify The Magnificent Magnificent Magnificent
I recently discovered N.T. Wright and have just finished his book 'Surprised by Hope'. His ideas are so basic and yet so profound that I have been reminded about truths that I have overlooked. We as a society have been so influenced by Greek philosophy that even Evangelicals mix-up the theology of Paul with the philosophy of Plato.
I highly recommend you buy the book and slowly read through it with a deliberative, open heart. If you do not want to purchase the book, whet your appetite with this article from ABC. I also found this video of Bishop Wright on 'The Colbert Report' (I know, I know) and thought he did an excellent job of explaining the premise of the book to Mr. Colbert.
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.
I stumbled upon this question on a website and was stunned by the findings:
Q. What is the ultimate origin of moral value?
Final Results 200 user(s) polled.
1. God 17.5% 2. Nature 23%
3. Culture 38%
4. Other 21.5%
The reason that I found this astounding is because of the implications of this are so profound. The ultimate origin of moral value was seen by 38% of those polled to be culture. All cultures, regardless of their values, are equal. The cultures promoting peace are the same as those promoting imperialism. Slavery and abolition are of the same essence, since after all, moral value (albeit separate moral values and separate ends) were derived from their culture. Who am I to say that one is right and one is wrong? Who am I to say that Communism is inferior to a republican form of government? Both derived their own moral value from their respective cultures.
Secondly, all moral value could come from nature. That means the natural order of things (read, Darwinian evolutionary theory) comes from "progress" and domination. I look around and nature says that the strongest survive. Social Darwinism and Eugenics surely follow closely behind on the heels of this theory.
Thirdly, other is the origin of all moral value. What could 'other' mean? Perhaps it means from extraterrestrials? It could mean it is derived from the automobile? Seriously though, what other possibilities could there be? Other is just an out for people who are too timid to say what's on their mind.
Finally, the ultimate origin of moral value could come from God. One of the reasons from my Top 10 list "Why I believe in God" would have to be that if there is no God, then there are no rights. Where would our rights to liberty come from? If they came from culture, then culture can change those original assumptions. As a theist, I firmly fall in this camp. There are absolutes in this world (besides, to say that there is no absolute laws in the world is itself absolute...). There is Truth in this world. There is a reason for living in this world. This came in the form of the Word becoming incarnate. Quite honestly, I don't know how else moral values can come into this world except through that pathway.
I am still in complete shock by the winner of the poll. We are talking about the ultimate origin of all moral value coming from cultures, regardless of their stance. Yet, why should this outcome surprise me?
Recently I have tried to start digging into the classics of the Western World. Reading through a few of the great authors of Europe, I have realized certain themes and ideas that permeate our modern society. However, I do not want to bore you with those concepts here (at least for today's post). Instead, I want to challenge you with a picture from the great political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli's life. Machiavelli loved Florence and the political scene within its walls. However, he was forced out of that beloved atmosphere and he chose a life of exile at his family's farm. The farm, within view of the dome of the cathedral, was the place that he spent a portion of his life, taking up chores and tasks around the property. In the mundane nature of manual labor (I'm not blasting manual labor, I love Mike Rowe and Dirty Jobs!), this political thinker used that time to his advantage. Machiavelli mused on the political atmosphere during the day and studied his books in the evening. He wrote, thought, and immersed himself in the political realities of the day even though his situation was less than ideal for him.
The period of Machiavelli's life reminded me about the necessity to live wholly during the seasons of your life, even if they are tough. I once heard a sermon about the nature of humanity to perpetually want the next best thing in life. As a child you will want to go to high school, then you will want to attend college, then you will want to date someone, then you will want to be married, then you will want to have kids, then you will want the kids to move out, then you will want grandkids, then you will want retirement. Unfortunately, by the time you have retired, you will then realize that you want to be a kid again! Besides the fact that this is entirely exhausting, this lifestyle misses the entire point of life. Even during the season of want and plenty, we ought to enjoy those times and take advantage of the unique opportunities that they afford. Even in the darkest storm, there could be a small sliver of opportunity for your growth. Perhaps this current season of your life has provided you a chance to perform that goal. Even though Machiavelli wanted to be in the bustle of Florence, he took advantage of the quiet evenings to expand his knowledge. Even though you look forward to the next step in life, you should take advantage of life right now. All we have is this season, who can ever tell what next month will bring?
In the wise words of Ferris Bueller, "Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it." Seasons of our lives provide times to grow and it is incredibly easy to miss it. Keep your eyes open and enjoy each season of your life.
I was speaking with a friend the other day about a book that I recently read called Real Sex. The book talks about sexuality and the non-Gnostic view that Christianity should take towards it. It affirmed our sexuality while simultaneously tying our physical bodies into a higher calling. During the conversation, I mentioned how the book spoke about reality instead of the fake illusion of sexuality that is peddled to us. Ironically, there is a show by the same name on HBO that promotes their depictions as Real Sex. This prompts me towards today's question. What is real sex? Is it the sex that is outlined in the book or in the show?
I am not going to give my opinion, all I want to do is provoke you to thought and a period of reflection on this important part of humanity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have you ever had a song weigh heavily upon your heart? For the past couple of weeks this amazing song by Switchfoot has been on my heart, especially the theme of longing for something more. The Beautiful Letdown album is so powerful and the theme of purpose constantly weaves itself throughout the songs. The notion of belonging to something better than this world is so incredible and 'On Fire' captures that poignantly. What song captures your heart's longing?
(If you have time, watch this song live in concert on YouTube)
On Fire
Tell you where you need to go Tell you when you need to leave Tell you what you need to know Tell you who you need to be
Everything inside you knows there's more than what you've heard So much more than empty conversation filled with empty words
And you're on fire when He's near you You're on fire when He speaks You're on fire, burning at these mysteries
Give me one more time around Give me one more chance to see Give me everything You are Give me one more chance to be
Everything inside me looks like everything I hate You are the hope I have for change, You are the only chance I'll take
When I'm on fire when You're near me I'm on fire when You speak I'm on fire burning at these mysteries These mysteries
I've been standing on the edge of me standing on the edge of me standing on the edge of me standing on the edge of me standing on the edge of everything I've never been before And I've been standing on the edge of me standing on the edge
And I'm on fire when You're near me I'm on fire when You speak I'm on fire burning at these mysteries
CS Lewis' The Great Divorce presents a very unique tale about the afterlife. It is one that is told in a refreshingly new way, dispelling the preconceptions that 21st Century humanity often bring to the table. Harps, clouds, flames, and pitchforks aside, Lewis brings something different to the theological subject. He highlights and personifies the things that so often hinder people from capturing the purpose of human existence. The plight of humanity can be addressed and remedied, and Lewis offers this hope within his writings. The personifications within this book can hopefully free you and I from the pitfalls of life (and I hope you read this short, hard-hitting story). Wherever you find yourself on the journey of life, know that there is hope for better days.
Lewis has an especially interesting character that speaks to me. As someone who enjoys philosophy and ideological debates, I can say with certainty that arguing can be fun. Debating ideas and jousting ideologies can be very stimulating, but ideas are also very dangerous. Ideas change the world and can inspire good or evil. The character in chapter five of The Great Divorce is a man who falls into this philosophical category. A solid person (read: a citizen of the bright, solid world) meets a friend from his former life who is nothing but a shadowy ghost (read: a citizen of the gray lands). The ghost came to this idyllic Eden on a trip and meets his friend and begins to converse. Towards the end of the conversation came an interesting exchange:
'Listen!' said the White Spirit (The solid person). 'Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now.'
'Ah, but when I became a man I put away childish things.' (replied the ghost)
'You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with the ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation has to do with marriage.'
Inquiry was made for truth. What a stunning statement to be made in a postmodern world! There is truth in the world and there is a necessity to find that truth. Not truths or a devout, honest opinion that this ghost would propose in The Great Divorce. Philosophy and theology has an ultimate goal. Philosophizing for the sake of philosophizing should not occur. Philosophizing for the pursuit of truth and clarity, that is the proper vehicle. (The ghost, funny enough, was an Episcopal minister. He boldly denied the Resurrection and even organized a theological paper presentation!) Philosophy is a great subject and vehicle of pursuit. But that search must always be towards truth and clarity. And yes, that is my devout, honest opinion.
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.
Lately, I have been wrestling with the concept of the Kingdom of God. What does this mean term even mean? This subject has haunted me like no other!
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.
What is so important about this Kingdom and what are the implications for people here on earth? I will explore this topic in several upcoming posts, but as I try to grapple with this subject, I wanted to initially ask your opinion. What do you think about the Kingdom of God? What are your reflections on this topic? What does a person look like if they truly followed the Kingdom of God?
I have discovered that humanity needs some core focus, something to place their hope in. For billions of people, that hope is in some sort of deity. Whether it is Allah or in mystical self realization there is something that grounds our actions and informs our decisions. In short, there is a god that rules over us and commands our allegiance. Even people who are atheists and deeply scientific place their hope in science and the achievement of reason. The BBC had an article by atheist Andrew Marr who explores this concept and points out the reality that Darwinism can be a religion. Darwinism seeks to uproot religion and plant another form in its place, albeit a secularized version.
The French Revolution sought to uproot the ideology of God and replace it with reason. The regime removed the altar devoted to Christianity in theNotre Dame and replaced it with the goddess of reason. Whether it is the belief in a divine purpose for life or an accidental explosion, the assumptions on the origin of life informs one's worldview. Marr wrote about religion, "I believe Darwin was right and that as science advances, he is proved more prescient, not less. But religions are absolute. They bring their truth and then repel all boarders. They divide mankind into the saved and the ignorant damned." The same can be said of Darwinism. Man turns to science for the answers and will shun those who say differently. Religion is dressed in a different cloak of reason.
I do not believe that Christianity hampers logic, instead it helps build a foundation for it. While Christianity can stifle growth (Galileo's trials are perfect example of this), it also has fostered expansion in science, government and social issues. Darwinism does not merely uproot religion and replace it with science. It places reason upon a pedestal for all to behold. While Darwinism can solve scientific dilemmas, it cannot solve the thirst for worship. It could even open up problematic areas in terms of ethics and morality. While someone can believe in evolution and also in God, the belief in a purposeless world designed on accident has philosophical implications. As Vonnegut would say "so it goes," the belief in a cosmic accident frees up an individual from having a purpose and gives them the space to act on their own accord. There is no firm basis for morality because might will always make right. In the end, Darwinism morphs into the target that it intended to disprove, a dogmatism steeped in intolerance.
As my choir was practicing for Maundy Thursday services I could not help but think about the dark days that descended upon Christ. Darkness. Rejection. Loneliness.
He who knew no sin was made sin for the world.
He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.
As I reflected on this event the images of icons at a Greek Monastery flashed before my eyes. The centurion marveling at this man who must have been the 'Son of God.' The few followers who did not run into hiding stood at the cross, shocked at the outcome of this movement. The agony and terror that must have been upon the minds of the dejected disciples. Their fate, they must have thought, could also lie upon that tree. What terror and darkness!
He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Fortunately, the darkness was soon eclipsed by brilliant beauty. Venom was replaced with honey and our wounds were healed.
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.
In case you've been living under a rock or are Amish (which in the latter case, you probably won't be reading this post...), you might have noticed that the financial system is struggling. Insolvency, balance sheets, FDIC and TARP are only a few terms that have been launched into the consciousness of the American public. While it is certainly confusing, I have found myself personally struggling to keep up with the jargon and inside baseball stats that have been thrown around. Luckily, I have stumbled across a podcast that clears up some of the confusing language surrounding the financial debacle. It is a 59 minute broadcast from This American Life that explains the cause and effects of the crisis in common terms.
As of right now, various banks have received TARP funds that were meant to be given out in the forms of loans, unfreezing the credit market. However, this purpose was not met since the balance sheets (see podcast or transcript to learn about this) were worse than originally anticipated. The banks gave out too many loans prior to TARP, becoming immensely overstretched. Once people began to default on their repayment of the loans, the banking system began to falter and crumble. As the show explained, to merely lend more is to go back to the root origin of the problem, over-lending. While members of congress are grandstanding on many issues and dumbing down the problem into populist nonsense, they do not confront the problems of the banking industry openly. The remedy to this could come in the form of letting banks fail, making the Bank of America truly become the Bank of America by nationalizing banks or anything in between (click here for one view that lies somewhere in between). We must talk openly and frankly about the crisis. Hopefully this podcast will allow more people in on that important conversation!
I confess I did not believe Barack Obama entirely during the campaign when he bragged on working across the aisle and championing bipartisanship.
You see, as in the case of any other politician, one must look to what he does--and has done--not what he says for election advantage.
And in the case of Sen. Obama, in his nascent career in the Senate, he had already compiled the most partisan record of any Democratic Senator. He had attended religiously one of the most racially divisive and extremist churches in the country. His Chicago friends were not moderates. His campaigns for state legislature, the House and the Senate were hard-ball, no-prisoner affairs of personal destruction, even by Chicago standards. Campaign references to reparations, gun- and bible-clingers, and Rev. Wright's wisdom were not words of healing.
In short, while the rhetoric was often inspirational, I found no real reason then--or now--to believe that Barack Obama wishes to be a uniter. And nothing in his first five weeks of governance has disabused me of that first tough impression.
Nevertheless, here are five modest recommendations that he might adopt if he were really interested in bringing the country together.
1) Forget talk radio. During the campaign, President Obama, you went after Sean Hannity on numerous occasions--which are recycled ad nauseam almost daily as sound-bites on his radio program. Once in office, both you and your staff have zeroed in on Rush Limbaugh by name. But Presidential candidates and elected Presidents must seem above the fray, and not descend into tit-for-tat with media celebrities. There is a reason why even your closest associates have ceased calling you Barack and now quite properly address you as "Mr. President"--and it is not due to your persistence in demonizing talk radio.
Did George Bush go after Bill Maher or Air America or Keith Olbermann when almost daily they slandered his character? Did he serially evoke Michael Moore? To have done so by name, would have demeaned his office. Worry about refuting conservative ideas, and governing the country, rather than dueling over the airways with those who get paid for only that. The country wanted a Lincoln, not another Nixon going after Dan Rather at a press conference. So far your administration resembles the latter, not the former.
2) Forget about George Bush. We got the message already that he is near satanic, you angelic. Yet even in your inauguration speech, you could not leave well enough alone, and so once again went after a predecessor who won two elections, and so far has been circumspect in his criticism of your own brief tenure. Even ex-Presidents--cf. Jimmy Carter's self-serving ankle-biting and Bill Clinton contorted snipes--reduce the office when they engage in schoolyard "they did it, not me" finger-pointing.
Again, in your first address to the nation, you went out swinging: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." But President Bush never set up such a Manichean either/or situation, as you yourself must accept, when you embraced his protocols on FISA, the Patriotic Act, the Bush-Petraeus Iraq withdrawal plan, and kept rendition, and so far have not quite closed Guantanamo.
And there was more still in that address: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. . .Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."
But Mr. President, deficits arose from out-of-control spending, inasmuch as the Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue. It is fair to fault the past eight years of profligate spending, but when you engage in such demagoguery, the American people can detect your subtext: "I won't criticize Bush's spending because I found it not enough and will trump it; I will criticize his tax cuts, since I want to make the wealthier pay for my even greater borrowing."
Cutting taxes on everyone who pays them is not transferring wealth, unless you believe that one's own income belongs to the government in the first place. Under Bush, nearly 50% of the tax filers for the first time paid no income tax at all--hardly a transfer of wealth.
As far as "gutting" regulations go, I don't think you wish to go there--given the careers of Franklin Rains, a disgraced Jim Johnson (of your recent hire), Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, who not only really did gut regulations that were at the center of the financial meltdown, but profited from such complicit laxity.
3) Drop the messianic style. The campaign is over. The Victory Column and Parthenon facades belong to last summer. Remember, it's hard finding elites to serve in government that are not tainted. You yourself discovered that depressing fact when you nominated tax-dodgers and lobbyists to your own cabinet. Not only did you have far more trouble on such ethical fronts than did Bush in his first month of nominations, but you suffered the additional wage of hypocrisy after adopting the prophetic rhetoric about your own virtue. 2012 will come soon enough without vero possumus at every turn.
4) Enough of the evil "rich." We've heard now about the proverbial jets, parties, and 'they want us to eat cake' rhetoric that is approaching the sloganeering of the French Revolution. No one likes a Bernie Madoff, or supports AIG and Citicorp execs wanting federal subsidies to cover their lavish lifestyles.
But a little humility is in order: the problem is not just Richard Fuld at a bankrupt Lehman Brothers, but also Clintonites like Robert Rubin at Citicorp, and liberals at Freddie and Fannie who took millions while destroying the financial integrity of hallowed institutions.
A William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, or John Murtha is an advertisement for ethical impropriety. Nancy Pelosi's private jet is as worrisome as those of the Big Three auto execs now on public assistance; both Ms. Pelosi and the car CEOs get federal monies and preside over bankrupt entities--and fly in class.
You are our President; so, please, begin seeing greed as an equal opportunity vice that infects liberal and conservatives alike--and anyone else with all too human frailties. If anything, the liberal egalitarian suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy for engaging in Rangelesque schemes or Robert Rubin 'me-first' bonuses--in the same manner conservatives do when caught with women or drugs after boasting of the need for old-time morality.
5) Stop the dissimulation. Your plan might work for a while given the incineration of trillions in stock and home equity and the need for replacement cash, but its revenue-raising component is not just aimed at the miniscule number of "rich", which you imply to the American people are flying the skies of America in private jets while being unpatriotic in avoiding taxes and violating regulations.
In fact, for your plan to succeed, you must go after the upper, upper middle-class, those making between $250,000 and $600,000 who are restaurant owners, home builders, labor contactors, architects, surgeons, engineers, hospital executives, college administrators, Ivy-League law professors, and many dentists.
These households are wealthy, yes; but they don't own or even fly on $50 million private jets or host private Super Bowl parties. Their income is all reported, and with such good salaries come high insurance and, in the case of business, constant reinvestment and expensive inventories. They are not greedy, but the bulwark of the United States' productive classes who in aggregate pay over 40% of the collective income taxes, and provide most of the jobs in the country. Under your plan many in these high-tax states will pay nearly 70% of their incomes in FICA, Medicare, federal income, and state income taxes. Why gratuitously mislead the American people that those for whom you will lift FICA ceilings or up their IRS bites to 40% are in any way synonymous with the super-rich? Remember the very, very wealthy voted overwhelmingly in your favor precisely because their riches gave them immunity from high taxes, and in many cases they were far removed from the everyday risk and worry of owning a hardware store or trying to keep together a family-owned construction firm. George Clooney is a world away from a paving contractor, just as making $400,000 a year on call 24/7 is not quite making $40 million investing or $2 million for a cameo.
So please no more intellectual dishonesty, Mr. President. Those in great numbers who will pay your higher taxes are not really the rarer Warren Buffets, Bill Gateses, Diane Feinsteins, Teresa Heinz Kerrys, Sean Penns, George Soroses, Oprah Winfreys, or Tiger Woodses, whose mega-wealth really does result in private jet rides, and yet exempts them from worries that increased taxes might wreck their small businesses.
A final note. You are engaged on a vast revolutionary agenda, one that if successful will create a high-tax, big government, large entitlement, UN-centered, and European-emulating country, far different from America of the past. Given your political skills and the current economic crisis, you, as FDR once did, may well pull it off.
Such radical transformation ipso facto creates winners and losers and means radical readjustments that stir passions. But the challenge of a President is to show empathy for those you must target, and some sensitivity to counter-arguments made from good intentions and sound logic.
Instead, you are beginning to create an 'us/them' climate of increasing passionate intensity, and unleashing zeal that cannot be healthy for the country. So far your soaring rhetoric, untraditional background, and the good will of the American people have mitigated such extremism as your Attorney General calling the nation collective "cowards" or your own serial invective against "the rich," "bankers" and Rush Limbaugh.
But there will come a time, when you will rue the politics of class warfare and the rhetoric of the demagogue--and may find the very intensities that you are unleashing for political advantage now, later on will be precisely those that you most regret that even you cannot control.
So a little less 'Bush did it' or Rush this and Sean that, and a little more of the need of all Americans to debate in calm and respect dissension in these times of uncertainty in which no one has all the answers.
I'm a 24 year old graduate student with a degree in History/Political Science. I have a strong interest in history, international politics and theology. I am currently working on my political philosophy and personal theology, looking unto the heavens.
Posts
