 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Why are Evangelicals so Politically Inept? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/9/2003 1:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | HonorDude,
a book you might like is Robert Fogel's "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism". It is an interesting history of how Christian Movements have intersected with movements to reform the politics/culture of the US. The author has been a secular Jew for most of his life but has grown in his affiliation for the social conservativism of evangelicals in recent years.
He stresses that because the US has depended on the money incentive so much in recent years and much of our poor are not poor compared to most of the world, that "spiritual" poverty and materialism are key issues that the liberalism he grew up with doesn't have answers for. So he rather hails the growing political strength of social/religious conservatives as a good thing overall and argues that economic liberals should be more accepting of much that "we" like to emphasize as important.
anyways, thought you might like it...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/10/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Taken from NYTIMES an illustration of how being a social/religious conservative may lead one to be economically liberal..
What Would Jesus Do? Sock It to Alabama's Corporate Landowners
June 10, 2003
By ADAM COHEN
MONTGOMERY, Ala.
If the religious right had called up Central Casting last
year to fill the part of governor, it could hardly have
done better than the teetotaling, Bible-quoting businessman
from rural central Alabama who now heads up the state. As a
Republican congressman, Bob Riley had a nearly perfect
record of opposing any legislation supported by the liberal
Americans for Democratic Action.
But Governor Riley has stunned many of his conservative
supporters, and enraged the state's powerful farm and
timber lobbies, by pushing a tax reform plan through the
Alabama Legislature that shifts a significant amount of the
state's tax burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and
corporations. And he has framed the issue in starkly moral
terms, arguing that the current Alabama tax system violates
biblical teachings because Christians are prohibited from
oppressing the poor.
If Governor Riley's tax plan becomes law - the voters still
need to ratify it in September - it will be a major victory
for poor people, a rare thing in the current political
climate. But win or lose, Alabama's tax-reform crusade is
posing a pointed question to the Christian Coalition, Focus
on the Family and other groups that seek to import
Christian values into national policy: If Jesus were active
in politics today, wouldn't he be lobbying for the poor?
Alabama's tax system has long been brutally weighted
against the least fortunate. The state income tax kicks in
for families that earn as little a $4,600, when even
Mississippi starts at over $19,000. Alabama also relies
heavily on its sales tax, which runs as high as 11 percent
and applies even to groceries and infant formula. The
upshot is wildly regressive: Alabamians with incomes under
$13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and
local taxes, while those who make over $229,000 pay just
4.1 percent.
A main reason Alabama's poor pay so much is that large
timber companies and megafarms pay so little. The state
allows big landowners to value their land using "current
use" rules, which significantly lowball its worth.
Individuals are allowed to fully deduct the federal income
taxes they pay from their state taxes, something few states
allow, a boon for those in the top brackets.
Governor Riley's plan, which would bring in $1.2 billion in
desperately needed revenue, takes aim at these
inequalities. It would raise the income threshold at which
families of four start paying taxes to more than $17,000.
It would scrap the federal income tax deduction and
increase exemptions for dependent children. And it would
sharply roll back the current-use exemption, a change that
could cost companies like Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade,
which own hundreds of thousands of acres, millions in
taxes. Governor Riley says that money is too tight to lift
the sales tax on groceries this time, but that he intends
to work for that later.
Church and state are not as separate in Alabama as they are
in most places. (The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme
Court was in federal court last week defending his decision
to install a 2.5-ton rendering of the Ten Commandments in
the state's main judicial building.) Alabamians are used to
hearing their politicians make religious arguments, and
Governor Riley thinks he can convince the voters that
Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system. "I've
spent a lot of time studying the New Testament, and it has
three philosophies: love God, love each other, and take
care of the least among you," he said. "I don't think
anyone can justify putting an income tax on someone who
makes $4,600 a year."
The state's progressive voters, including many in the
sizable African-American community, have backed tax-law
changes like these for years. And reform-minded business
leaders, who see such tax changes and improved schools as
crucial to the state's economic development, have promised
to spend millions of dollars on television ads in support
of the September referendum.
But religious groups could provide the margin of victory.
Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama tax professor
with a theological degree from an evangelical divinity
school, caused a stir with a law review article called "An
Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics,"
which makes an evangelical case for making the tax system
fairer. She plans to train speakers this summer to take the
theological argument to the grass roots. Kimble Forrister,
the state coordinator of Alabama Arise, a coalition that
advocates for poor people, expects the 100 church groups
that are part of his organization to hold church-basement
workshops this summer to get the word out to their
congregations.
The Christian Coalition of Alabama has not yet taken a
position on the September vote, but it has been speaking
out against the plan's tax increases. In an interview
yesterday, John Giles, the group's president, had trouble
pointing to a biblical passage that directly supported his
opposition to new taxes, but he referred to Jesus'
statement about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The
key question, he argued, is, "How much is Caesar's?"
As the Bush administration and the religious right fight to
put theology more squarely into public policy discussions,
they are going to have to be ready for arguments like the
ones coming out of Alabama. Many theologians argue that it
is far easier to find support in the Bible for policies
that help the poor than for, say, a cut in the dividend
tax. If Governor Riley's crusade succeeds this summer,
Alabama may offer the nation a model for a new kind of tax
system: one where the Devil is not in the details.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/10/opinion/10TUE4.html?ex=1056264278&ei=1&en=6aff5a7f2c917468
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/12/2003 1:20 PM (GMT -6) | | This has some good quotes from Bush from his campaign and evaluates his record on poverty.
dlw
Faith-Based Talk -- Where's the Action?
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, June 10, 2003; Page A21
Washington Post.
"Government has an important role" and "will never be replaced by charities." That's what an influential politician said at Notre Dame two years ago. "Government must be active enough to fund services for the poor -- and humble enough to let good people in local communities provide those services."
It was another one of those excellent speeches President Bush gives about compassionate conservatism. He is always eloquent in describing the exceptional work of those in churches, synagogues and mosques who devote their lives to the neediest among us.
There's only one catch: When push comes to shove, the priorities of his administration are always somewhere else. Yes, Bush still talks about his faith-based initiative. But when the big money is divvied up, almost all of it goes to tax cuts, mostly for the wealthiest Americans.
In the recent $350 billion tax bill, Bush and Congress couldn't find $3.5 billion to expand the federal government's child tax credit to families earning between $10,500 and $26,625 a year. The expansion would have been worth an average of $150 per child, and as much as $400 for some children. But the provision got dropped. Helping these families required, as the president might put it, a little-bitty reduction in the huge tax cuts going to the richest Americans. Can't have that.
The Senate last week tried to make up for this social policy foolishness, and Bush shrewdly sent a signal through his spokesman yesterday that he wanted to sign the Senate bill. But you still wonder if it will be tied to more tax cuts for the rich, and the larger question remains: How can he square his fine talk about the poor with the priorities of his budgets?
A group of religious leaders -- 30 at last count -- sent a letter to the president yesterday asking exactly that question. The signers, led by the Rev. Jim Wallis, note that many in their ranks "have supported your faith-based initiative from the beginning of the administration" and "the proposals of your administration to strengthen marriage and family as effective antipoverty measures."
But after noting the president's kind words about the "good people" in community groups that help the poor, the signers offered these sobering thoughts:
"Mr. President, 'the good people' who provide such services are feeling overwhelmed by increasing need and diminished resources. And many are feeling betrayed. The lack of consistent, coherent and integrated domestic policy that benefits low-income people makes our continued support for your faith-based initiative increasingly untenable. Mr. President, the poor are suffering, and without serious changes in the policies of your administration, they will suffer more."
Wallis is the convener and president of the Washington-based Call to Renewal, an association of religious groups concerned about poverty. He sees a disconnect when government "is cutting resources to the poor while cutting taxes on the rich" and then asks faith-based groups to pick up the slack. "You're asking us to substitute for good public policy," he says. "You're asking us to make bricks without straw."
Candor requires saying that this debate is important to me personally. I've edited a couple of books on faith-based charity. I respect the people in the administration who have worked on faith-based issues and count some of them as friends. I have always thought that liberals should be open to properly conceived faith-based approaches, partly because so many religious groups -- Lutheran Services, African American churches, Catholic Charities and the Jewish federations, among others -- have long joined with government to lift up the poor.
I have also been critical of simple-minded attacks on Bush as a religious fanatic. On the contrary, it's Bush's religious side that seems to draw him at least to the right words about poverty.
Yet it's precisely because I don't want the faith-based approach to be a cover for the wholesale abandonment of government's responsibilities that I share the dismay of the religious leaders who wrote to Bush. Millions of working people are poor -- and lack health insurance and adequate child care -- even though they do all the things that society and our religious traditions say they should. Religious groups will never have the money to transform the material conditions of these families. But relatively modest government outlays could make their lives much better.
There is a religious mandate for such an approach. "Jewish prophets and Catholic teaching both speak of God's special concern for the poor. This is perhaps the most radical teaching of faith, that the value of life is not contingent on wealth or strength or skill, that value is a reflection of God's image."
Those thoughtful words are George W. Bush's. Is it too much to ask him to explain how his policies live up to that vision?
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/14/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a link to a Boondocks cartoon strip that shows how nonChristians perceive Christianity due to our lack of autonomy and habits of reflection re:politics.
http://www.ucomics.com/cgi-bin/sendtoafriend/getpostcard.cgi?site_ref=ucomics&MsgID=f0e6a4bebcacdb9ca9a60554656319d5
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/15/2003 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | This article from NYTimes.com
This article describes how Bush's popularity is making raising money for his reelection campaign quite easy.
Many who were so-so about him are now giving, probably since it is good to have access to a sure-thing...
But why is he a sure-thing? What did he do in the after-math of 9-11 that anyone else wouldn't have done? Why are so many of us so easily manipulated?
dlw
Fund-Raising Push by Bush Will Put Rivals Far Behind
June 15, 2003
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and ADAM NAGOURNEY
President Bush is embarking on a fund-raising sprint that
Republicans say will collect at least $20 million in two
weeks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/politics/campaigns/15DONA.html?ex=1056707404&ei=1&en=0cd0e318b324fc19
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/17/2003 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is an important article on Campaign Finance Reform and the putting of restrictions on the freedom of $peech, or the democracy of the dollar.
Why should we as Christians care about this? The influence of moneyed interests tends to grow and requires some advocacy by parties not driven by material interests primarily to be checked.
This checking of influenc matters since we all are under sin and too much of a concentration of influence/power, regardless of the party channels it goes through(and moneyed interests typically hedge their bets with contributions to both Democrats and Republicans) will lead to corruption and likely unnecessary suffering. And if we could have prevented this from happening, but chose not then that will lead to the same effect happening in the US as has happened in Europe. A lack of autonomy between Church and State plus a good dose of hypocripsy leading the intellecuals to reject Christianity and many others to follow or to let it stagnate in their lives, becoming an Easter and Christmas ceremony.
dlw
Nonprofits Bound By Donation Rules
McCain-Feingold Case Impact Seen
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2003; Page A06
The Supreme Court, in a decision that heartened advocates of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, yesterday rejected a claim that nonprofit organizations should be exempt from a nearly 100-year-old law banning corporate contributions to candidates in federal campaigns.
However, many of those challenging the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, in a separate case to be taken up by the court this fall, argued that the 7-2 decision had little or no bearing on their claim that the newer law violates free-speech guarantees under the First Amendment.
In the case decided yesterday, Beaumont v. Federal Election Commission, No. 02-403, the antiabortion group North Carolina Right to Life argued that the ban on corporate contributions should not apply to it because it is a nonprofit corporation exempt from federal taxation, has no shareholders and raises most of its money from "private contributions from individuals."
These arguments were rejected in the majority opinion written by Justice David H. Souter: "Any attack on the federal prohibition of direct corporate political contributions goes against the current of a century of congressional efforts to curb corporations' potentially 'deleterious influences on federal elections.' "
Souter dismissed the argument that nonprofits deserve special treatment, declaring, "Nonprofit advocacy corporations are, moreover, no less susceptible than traditional business companies to misuse as conduits for circumventing the contributions limits imposed on individuals."
In perhaps the most significant portent for the fate of McCain-Feingold law, which bars "soft money" contributions by corporations, unions and others to the national political parties, Souter wrote in a footnote: "Within the realm of contributions generally, corporate contributions are furthest from the core of political expression . . . A ban on direct corporate contributions leaves individual members of corporations free to make their own contributions, and deprives the public of little or no material information."
Despite the decision's relatively narrow application, it immediately became the subject of heated dispute between advocates and opponents of the McCain-Feingold law.
A number of legal academics supported the view that the decision bodes well for McCain-Feingold.
"The opinion is very significant for the pending Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [McCain-Feingold] and in all ways it helps the law's defenders," said Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Souter's comments "are strong indications supporting the rationale behind Congress's soft money ban."
The law's chief sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said, "The Supreme Court's decision today to uphold the ban on direct, political contributions from corporations is both welcome and consistent with legal precedent and congressional reform efforts."
Deborah Goldberg, acting director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a legal think tank at New York University, said, "The seven-justice majority in Beaumont bodes well for the constitutionality of the soft money provisions."
But Floyd Abrams, one of the lead lawyers challenging the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, countered that supporters of McCain-Feingold are conducting a "premature celebration." Abrams said, "There is a lot more agony that everyone, including the Supreme Court, has to go through. The ruling today does not change the dynamics of that decision-making process."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/18/2003 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | This was taken from today's Prism e-pistle.
dlw
1.A MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
by Ron Sider.
On June 9th, more than 20 Christian leaders from Call
to Renewal met in the White House with several of
President Bush's key people, including Jay
Lefkowitz, chair of the Domestic Policy Council. Our
message: The president's tax and budget decisions
are hurting the poor in America.
In my remarks, I explained to Lefkowitz that I have
been a strong supporter of the president's Faith-
Based Initiative, but that the president is not
following through on his own rhetoric. President
Bush rightly speaks of a poverty of the wallet and a
poverty of the soul. Only faith-based groups can
deal with the latter.
The president SAYS in speeches that government can
and should deal with poverty of the wallet. But then
his tax cuts for the rich and budget cuts for
federal programs that help the poor contradict his
speeches.
Sadly, I told Lefkowitz, I am within a hair's
breadth of concluding that the president's
"Compassionate Conservatism" is just a cynical cover
for ignoring the poor. I added that I do not want to
reach that conclusion. But unless President Bush
adds new federal money to effective anti-poverty
programs, I will be forced to that conclusion.
A few hours before we met, the White House announced
what is a modest victory for us. After the final tax
cut bill gave more huge tax cuts to the rich but
dropped $3.5 billion for the working poor,
Republicans got very bad press. On the Friday before
our meeting in the White House, the Senate voted to
restore the $3.5 billion, but the House was opposed.
Almost certainly the vigorous work of Call to
Renewal and the knowledge of our Monday afternoon
meeting on June 9th were influential in persuading
the White House to urge the House to follow the
Senate and quickly restore the $3.5 billion for the
working poor.
But $3.5 billion is small stuff. The open letter to
the president, which we released after our White
House meeting on June 9th (see below), calls on the
president to do a lot more to help reduce widespread
poverty in the richest nation in history. Letters to
the president and leaders in Congress could
underline our call.
** ** **
Dear Mr. President,
We are all leaders in the faith community, whose
churches and faith-based organizations are on the
front lines of fighting poverty. Many of us have
supported your faith-based initiative from the
beginning of the administration. Several of us have
met with you to discuss the churches' role in
overcoming poverty and have offered solid support to
our friends John DiIulio and Jim Towey, who have led
your Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives. But while we have consistently backed
faith-based approaches to poverty reduction, we have
also insisted they must be accompanied by policies
that really do assist low-income families and
children as they seek self-sufficiency.
Mr. President, it is a critical time for poor people
in America. Poor people are suffering; and our
faith-based service providers see it every day in
communities across the country. The poor are
suffering because of a weakening economy. The poor
are suffering because of resources being diverted to
war and homeland security. And the poor are
suffering because of a lack of attention in national
public policy.
We are writing because of our deep moral concern
about consistency in your administration's support
for effective policies that help alleviate poverty.
We believe a lack of focus on the poor in the
critical areas of budget priorities and tax policy
is creating a crisis for low-income people. We
believe the budget your administration has put
forward fails to protect and promote the well being
of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The tax
cut just passed by the Congress with your support
provides virtually no help for those at the bottom
of the economic ladder, while those at the top reap
windfalls. The resulting spending cuts, at both
federal and state levels, in the critical areas of
health care, education, and social services, will
fall heaviest on the poor. Budgets are moral
documents.
You have taken many positive steps with regard to
international aid and development, such as the
HIV/AIDS initiative, and we would like to see that
compassion manifest here at home. In significant
social programs, like welfare reform, we have
supported the proposals of your administration to
strengthen marriage and family as effective anti-
poverty measures; but the companion pro-family
commitments to invest in adequate child care,
education, and training for our poorest families
have fallen short in your administration's
proposals. The most effective and bipartisan public
policies for reducing poverty have not been
adequately supported by your administration.
Over the past several years, we have advocated
several policy initiatives in addition to the
"faith-based initiative" that would help low-income
people in this country. These include TANF
reauthorization that makes poverty reduction a
priority, targeted tax relief for low-income
families, and funding for proven programs that would
effectively reduce poverty. We believe
administration support for such policies would be
consistent with your stated commitment of being
compassionate toward the poor, especially since you
have spoken more about issues of poverty than many
of your predecessors.
We recall your Notre Dame address two years ago,
where you pointed out: "Government has an important
role. It will never be replaced by charities... Yet,
government must also do more to take the side of
charities and community healers, and support their
work... Government must be active enough to fund
services for the poor - and humble enough to let
good people in local communities provide those
services."
Mr. President, "the good people" who provide such
services are feeling overwhelmed by increasing need
and diminishing resources. And many are feeling
betrayed. The lack of a consistent, coherent, and
integrated domestic policy that benefits low-income
people makes our continued support for your faith-
based initiative increasingly untenable. Mr.
President, the poor are suffering, and without
serious changes in the policies of your
administration, they will suffer even more.
When you announced the faith-based initiative, you
pledged that: "I want to ensure that faith-based and
community groups will always have a place at the
table in our deliberations." Mr. President, it's
time to bring faith-based organizations to the table
where policy decisions are being made. We are
concerned that the needs of poor people in America
seem to have little influence in the critical policy
decisions your administration is making. The faith-
based-initiative seems to be the only place in your
administration where poverty is prioritized, yet we
know that faith-based initiatives alone will never
be sufficient to solve the problems of poverty. As
we have discussed with you the faith-based
initiative, we now want to engage your
administration in a serious conversation about
domestic social policy. Mr. President, it's time to
talk.
Signed,
>Jim Wallis, Convener/President, Call to Renewal
>David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World
>Peter Borgdorff, Executive Director of Ministries,
Christian Reformed Church
> Lt. Col. Paul Bollwahn, National Social Services
Secretary, The Salvation Army
>J. Daryl Byler, Director Washington Office,
Mennonite Central Committee
>Bart Campolo, President, Mission Year
>Tony Campolo, President, Evangelical Association
for Promotion of Education
>John Bryson Chane, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of
Washington DC
>Steven Charleston, President and Dean, Episcopal
Divinity School
>Dave Donaldson, President, We Care America
>Robert Edgar, General Secretary, National Council
of Churches in the USA
>Robert M. Franklin, Presidential Distinguished
Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory Univ.
>Wayne Gordon, President, Christian Community
Development Association
>Wes Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary
Reformed Church in America
>Richard Hamm, General Minister/President, Christian
Church - Disciples of Christ in the U.S. and Canada
>Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America
>Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr. , Presiding Bishop, Fourth
District, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church &
President-elect, National Council of Churches in the
USA
>David G. Hunt, President, American Baptist Churches
USA
>Hyepin Im, President, Korean Churches for Community
Development
>William "Bud" Ipema, Vice-President, Council of
Leadership Foundations
>Alvin Jackson, National City Christian Church
Moderator, Christian Church-Disciples of Christ in
the U.S. and Canada
>Ted Keating, SM, Executive Director, Conference of
Major Superiors of Men
>Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk, Presbyterian
Church USA
>Mark MacDonald, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Alaska
>Felton Edwin May, Presiding Bishop, Baltimore-
Washington Conference, United Methodist Church
>A. Roy Medley, General Secretary, American Baptist
Churches USA
>Gordon Murphy, Executive Director, Christian
Community Development Association
>Glenn R. Palmberg, President, Evangelical Covenant
Church
>Donald A. Ott, Coordinator, United Methodist
Council of Bishops Initiative on Children and
Poverty
>Carole Shinnick, SSND, Executive Director
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
>Ron J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social
Action
>John H. Thomas, General Minister/President, United
Church of Christ
>Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on
National Legislation
>Jim Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of
Church and Society, United Methodist Church
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/8/2003 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Here we see some astute comparison of the leadership styles of Blair and Bush. Blair is a great example of a Christian who has dedicated himself to reflection on politics and leadership in said area as well, even when he didn't know infallibly what is right conduct.
dlw
In Blair We Trust
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
LONDON
One of the saddest results of our war in Iraq is that it may finish off Tony Blair before Saddam Hussein.
Everywhere I go in Britain, people dismiss Mr. Blair as President Bush's poodle. Mr. Blair's Labor Party has fallen behind the Conservatives in the latest poll, for only the second time in 11 years. "The Iraq critics think that the prime minister has betrayed his country to a Texas gunslinger," William Rees-Mogg noted in The Times of London.
So it'll sound foolish when I suggest that President Bush should study Mr. Blair and learn a few things. But on the other hand, everybody likes Mr. Blair but the Brits.
A poll by the Pew Research Center found that Mr. Blair was the world leader Americans trusted most (Mr. Bush ranked second), respected by 83 percent of Americans, and he was also highly esteemed in countries as diverse as Australia and Nigeria. More interesting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair took very similar positions over the last couple of years, and both exaggerated the Iraqi threat — and yet Mr. Blair is perhaps the leading statesman in the world today and Mr. Bush is regarded by much of the globe as a dimwitted cowboy. Or, as an Oxford don put it to me after perhaps too much sherry, "a buffoon."
The main reason is that the White House overdosed on moral clarity.
Mr. Bush always exudes a sense that the issues are crystal clear and that anyone who disagrees with him is playing political games. This fervor worked fine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and in proper doses, moral clarity is admirable. But too much hobbles policy-making and insults our intelligence.
Mr. Blair stands with Mr. Bush on Iraq but acknowledges the complexity of the issues.
"Yes, there are countries that disagree with what we are doing; I mean, there's no point in hiding it — there's been a division," Mr. Blair told reporters at Camp David early in the war, when the two leaders were asked about opposition to the war among allies. But Mr. Bush gave no ground, saying: "We've got a huge coalition. . . . I'm very pleased with the size of our coalition."
Mr. Blair met Pope John Paul II and the archbishop of Canterbury to discuss their opposition to the war. But President Bush refused to discuss objections to the war with the head of the National Council of Churches or even the head of his own church, the United Methodists.
Political insults are a traditional British sport (Churchill famously described his rival Clement Atlee as a sheep in sheep's clothing, and as a modest man with much to be modest about). But Mr. Blair dignifies his opponents by grappling with their arguments in a way that helps preserve civility — and that we Americans can learn from.
Mr. Bush is not the dummy his critics perceive. My take is that he's very bright in a street-smarts way: he's witty and has a great memory for faces, and his old girlfriends speak more highly of him than many women do of their husbands. But he's also less interested in ideas than perhaps anybody I've ever interviewed, and his intelligence is all practical and not a bit intellectual. Nuance isn't his natural state, and yet he gives us glimmers to show he can achieve it.
The last time Mr. Bush seemed genuinely to wrestle with an issue was the summer of 2001, when he acknowledged the toughness of the stem cell debate. He showed an impressive willingness to puzzle through stem cell policy and seek a compromise.
If Mr. Bush had pursued that same model of policy-making into Iraq, then we would not have alienated our allies or bungled postwar planning because of rosy assumptions.
In 1979, James Fallows wrote a legendary critique of President Jimmy Carter's "Passionless Presidency." He argued that Mr. Carter was a smart, decent man who excelled in details but catastrophically lacked a sweeping vision to inspire the country and animate his presidency.
Well, now we've got a Passionate Presidency. But it's so focused on big-picture ideological campaigns that it doesn't bother with details (like what we will do with Iraq after we've conquered it). Mr. Blair offers a third way — passion tethered to practicality, idealism without ideologues.
Given that Mr. Blair might end up with time on his hands, perhaps Mr. Bush could hire him as an adviser.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/10/2003 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | This is one of the potential opportunity costs of spending hours and hours discussing what hell is like. We do not take the time to consider important issues like those contained in the following article on the need for institutional change to ensure the enforcement of campaign finance reform.
Campaign Finance Sponsors Want to End F.E.C.
July 10, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:04 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The lead sponsors of the nation's new
campaign finance law have a new goal: abolishing the
federal agency responsible for enforcing it.
Lawmakers, including Sens. John McCain and Russell
Feingold, proposed legislation Thursday that would replace
the Federal Election Commission with a new agency.
They and campaign finance watchdog groups have long argued
that the FEC -- headed by three Democratic and three
Republican commissioners -- is more concerned with
protecting the major political parties' interests than
enforcing the law.
``The FEC has seemed to go out of its way to interpret the
campaign laws in a way that opens loopholes for evasion of
what Congress intended,'' said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.
Under the proposal, the FEC would be replaced by a new
agency called the Federal Election Administration,
comprised of three people -- a chairman and two members --
which would eliminate the possibility of deadlocked votes.
The president would appoint the three, with the Senate's
consent; the two members would have to come from different
political parties.
No appointee could come from the FEC, have been a candidate
or officeholder or worked for one, or been employed by a
political party. Enforcement action against suspected
campaign finance law violators would be considered by
administrative law judges.
The FEC, created by Congress more than a quarter-century
ago as one of several post-Watergate reforms, is charged
with enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws,
including limits on campaign contributions.
``It is sad when the agency charged with enforcing the
election laws is jokingly referred to as the 'failure to
enforce commission,''' said Feingold, D-Wis. ``This new
agency will provide a new and better structure for
achieving that goal.''
McCain, R-Ariz., said he and other sponsors do not expect
the current Congress to act on their proposal and expect a
tough road ahead. ``I think a lot of people like the status
quo,'' he said.
McCain, Feingold, Meehan and Rep. Christopher Shays,
R-Conn. -- the four lead sponsors of the law toughening
campaign finance restrictions -- were angered last summer
by new FEC rules they contended created loopholes in the
law. They said then that they would develop a proposal to
overhaul the agency.
Commissioner Scott Thomas, a Democrat, said he is
interested in seeing the legislation.
``I'm very anxious to take a fresh look at whether the
agency could be structured in a better way so we could be
in a better position to apply the law as Congress
intended,'' Thomas said. He was one of two commissioners
who opposed the new rules the law's sponsors criticized as
creating loopholes.
Thomas said one benefit of having three commissioners each
from the two major parties is the assurance that any
commission action is bipartisan.
Critics say the commission's partisan makeup too often
leads to 3-3 deadlocks along party lines that force the FEC
to drop cases against suspected violators.
Campaign finance watchdog groups including Common Cause and
Democracy 21 have proposed replacing the FEC with a new
agency headed by a single administrator with stronger
enforcement power and with a panel of administrative law
judges to consider enforcement cases.
``This agency has a long history of failure,'' Democracy 21
founder Fred Wertheimer said. ``The track record of this
agency is that it is a captured agency, an agency that
responds (to) and reflects the interests of those being
regulated as opposed to the interests of the American
public.''
The legislation comes as the law's sponsors join the
government in defending the law before the Supreme Court,
which is considering several challenges to its
constitutionality.
^------
On the Net:
FEC: http://www.fec.gov/
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Campaign-Finance.html?ex=1058861915&ei=1&en=7362b4b95ce1f709
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Blood Washed Heretic
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 167
| Posted 7/25/2003 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Evangelicals are politically inept because they believe that the GOP is some sort of bastion of moral purity. Why do they believe this? Because Republicans keep promising to end, or at least strictly regulate, abortion practices. Okay, that's an honorable cause. What else do they have? Well, they'd like to make houses of worship into places where political candidates can disseminate propaganda and court votes and financial contributions freely (as evidenced by the attempt in Congress by Republicans to allow churches who promote such activities to keep their tax-exempt status). Ouch. Well, that's just an aberration, right? Moving on...
The GOP would desperately like to do away with silly things like pollution controls and national parks/reserves (or at least parks and reserves with significant oil or natural gas levels). That's cool, because the Bible is completely silent on stewardship of Creation. Oh, wait... Stupid Genesis.
Well, there has to be smething else besides abortion that the party Jesus votes for is doing right. Okay, taking care of the poor. I mean, it's impossible to ignore all of the Word's teaching there, right? Hmmm... maybe not. Those silly GOPers sure take care of their own, don't they? I hope there's no warnings from Jesus against the danger of excessive wealth, uh oh...
Oh well, at least He didn't die for EVERYONE. Beause if His atonement covers more than just the born-again, USAmerican, pro-lifers, then most of our grand ol' party's domestic AND foreign policy is awfully hard to support as a follower of Christ.
Thank Heaven there ain't too many of those among politically inept Evangelicals  .
I'm such a stinker...
In essentials, unity; In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/25/2003 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | preach it brother,
preach it brother,
luv to hear ya over at the abortion-link. ThingsakindagetuhlittlehotnheavyroundhereonsuchissuesbutGodisgoodnwe'res'posedtuhluvourenemiesanyways...
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/25/2003 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there Blood -
That was a great post! I also agree with you...I can't tell you how many Christians I know who voted for W solely b/c of the abortion issue....I said to a lot of them- how much do you want to bet that 4 yrs from now, abortion will still be legal, and the amount of abortions will not drastically lessen? It's 3 yrs into the administration now, and there's no practical difference between abortions under Clinton and abortions under Bush.
Since Roe v Wade, we've had Nixon, Ford, Reagan, BUsh, and W as Republican presidents, and none of them succeeded in doing one thing about abortion. (so far, W has not either...) | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh and I suppose everything I've ever written on this link was chopped liver?
Sniff, Sniff ,
that's okay less of me, more of him.
So I s'pose you also think that my three-party political economy link is terribly verbose and unclear too... or just not as hot of a topic as hell?
I am okay.
I am okay.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/28/2003 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | | No - not at all! I don't like getting involved in more controversy here than I already have been, however, so have been avoiding the political threads for the most part... | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
No - not at all! I don't like getting involved in more controversy here than I already have been, however, so have been avoiding the political threads for the most part...
For me, I like getting into controversy, but I always like to diversify with whom I am in conflict with. That way I piss off everybody in someways and support their contentions in others...
It increases the number of Christmas Cards I get.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 12/11/2003 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | A little history lesson. Nixon was the darling of Evangelicals and supported as a candidate by Billy Graham who held much sway over Evangelicals votes. It may have been our desperation with the cultural developments during the late sixties, but here is a look at what Nixon was really like as a person.
The man really played us.
dlw
Reagan Uncomfortable to Be Around, Nixon Says on Tapes
The release of 240 hours of recordings showed how the 37th president weighed political effects of his decisions.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
COLLEGE PARK, Md. — In one call, President Richard Nixon is on the telephone to Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir talking about peace in the Middle East. On another, he is directing the White House chief of staff to make sure his daughter Tricia gets a refrigerator in her room.
And he tells his chief of staff that California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who had challenged Nixon for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, is "an uncomfortable man to be around."
Those are among the new glimpses into the former president's personal and political life gleaned from 240 hours of White House tape recordings secretly made by Nixon in 1972 and released to the public Wednesday.
The tapes portray a reelection-minded president weighing the political effects of many decisions. In one conversation with a political aide, Nixon agonized over whether to make a congratulatory call to swimmer Mark Spitz, who he thought might be a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate George S. McGovern. He did not call Spitz, the winner of an unprecedented seven gold medals at the 1972 Olympics.
The recordings deal with 3,000 conversations on subjects as serious as the Vietnam War and as flighty as predictions by psychic Jeane Dixon, with whom Nixon once met.
They also include conversations with Frank Sinatra, Johnny Cash and the reigning Miss America, as well as discussions about the drinking habits of members of Congress and the alleged infidelity of a political opponent.
Nixon's remarks, like those on previously released tapes, are sprinkled with expletives.
"This certainly is going to help complete the record of the Nixon presidency," said John Powers of the National Archives and Records Administration.
In August 1974, Nixon became the only president to resign from office after his taping revealed his efforts to cover up the Watergate scandal. He died in 1994.
Politics, not surprisingly during an election year, was a major topic of discussion in the latest batch of tapes.
In September 1972, Nixon told Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger that he would like to see a peace agreement to end the Vietnam War before the November presidential election. "The advantage of trying to settle now, even if you're 10 points ahead [in the polls], is you ensure a hell of a landslide, and you might win the House and increase strength in the Senate," Nixon said.
In a conversation the same month with White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman, Nixon agonized over whether Vice President Spiro T. Agnew should break a commitment to appear at a campaign event in Texas or fly to Washington for a possible tie-breaking vote on a spending bill before the Senate.
Nixon finally decided to call Agnew back to Washington, concluding that his political enemies would make hay out Agnew's absence for a crucial vote. "I just don't think he ought to take the heat," Nixon said.
Nixon recalled that as vice president, he missed a key Senate vote, and his opponents raised "quite a bit of hell about it." He added, however, that the spending bill was important to him. "If it were on water pollution or something like that, I wouldn't give a damn," he said.
In concluding that Agnew should be in Washington for the vote, Nixon says, "My view is we just shouldn't take the risk."
In an August 1972 conversation, Nixon and Haldeman compared Reagan and another big-state governor, Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York.
While praising Rockefeller, Nixon said Reagan "just isn't pleasant to be around." Reagan served two terms as president.
In another conversation, Nixon complained about the crowd estimates used by newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, saying they often understated the size of crowds for his events.
Nixon began his secret taping system in February 1971 and dismantled it in July 1973 after its existence was revealed in testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee.
The release of the tapes by the National Archives was the 10th time Nixon tapes had been made public since 1980.
Another batch of tapes, covering November 1972 until the taping system was removed, is expected to be released in about two years.
A spending bill approved this week by the House and due to come before the Senate in January would rescind a 1974 law that has prevented the transfer of a large portion of Nixon's presidential records from the National Archives facility in Maryland to the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace in Yorba Linda.
*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press contributed to this report.
*
(Begin Text of Infobox)
Excerpts from Nixon's tapes
Nixon on Reagan and Rockefeller: Talking politics with White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman at Camp David in August 1972, Nixon switched the conversation to two Republican governors: California's Ronald Reagan and New York's Nelson A. Rockefeller.
Nixon described Rockefeller as "sort of bouncy and upbeat" and said Reagan "just isn't pleasant to be around."
"No, he isn't," Haldeman said.
"I don't know. Maybe he's different with others," Nixon said.
"No, no, I don't think so," Haldeman said.
"He's just an uncomfortable man to be around — strange," Nixon said.
—
Nixon and Kissinger on Vietnam: Nixon and Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said they wanted to get some sort of peace agreement with the North Vietnamese before election day 1972.
"The advantage of trying to settle now, even if you're 10 points ahead [in the polls], is you ensure a hell of a landslide, and you might win the House and increase strength in the Senate," Nixon told Kissinger in September 1972.
"The question is: How can we maneuver it so it can look like a settlement by election day, but the process is still open?" Kissinger said. "This could finish the destruction of [challenger George S.] McGovern."
*
Source: Associated Press
Los Angeles Times
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| 41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|