America Has No Irrefutably "Good" Old Days

"Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing! Sorry to say that... But his core values, his Democratic values are, at least for me, nowhere near what America needs. And for the record, Huckabee is just as bad, but on the opposite spectrum. America needs to go back to its roots. Smaller government. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. More freedom. You ain't gonna get that with Obama."

A virtually anonymous blogger posted this in response to my cross-post regarding Mike Huckabee on "Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel". This sparked the following visceral response in me. I didn't want to let good thought go to waste:

Though I appreciate your comment, I must challenge your assertion. To what point in American political history are you proposing we return?

America's roots of truly smaller government are of an aristocratic government, which was more plutocratic than what we have now.

From what I've been able to gather over the years, proponents for so called "smaller" government are seeking less regulation, but we must ask ourselves who has this less regulation historically benefited? Further, what have we set in place since then to ensure things would not just revert?

In addition, I've never heard a "smaller" government advocate make the case for actually spending less money, only the case for spending less money on fellow citizens unlike herself. I've never heard a "smaller" government proponent advocate against the money spent on the things that have accrued to the benefit of himself and the small, but affluent and influential, constituency he represents. I've never seen a "smaller" gov't advocate support the return of land taken from native Americans in westward expansion; or the restitution of wealth generated by but denied former slaves and their descendants; or the return of oil revenue and commodity stolen from middle east nations; or a trade policy that does not devalue the wealth of the global south, requiring that western corporations have the right to buy up all a nation's natural resources if that nation wants the right to play on the global stage, but rendering the nation too asset weak to do so. All of these are historic acts of a "large" (in terms of power) and over-reaching American gov't and have cost far more than the aggregate of the social programming ever done in this country. However, advocates for "smaller" gov't don't traditionally argue for the redress or cessation of these things, only for exemption from the give-end of the give-and-receive social contract that has made their historic privilege possible.

I should also mention that, by comparison, America, though still sorely lacking, has never been more "free" for a wider cross-section of people than it is right now. Nevertheless, not one treaty with a native American nation has ever been honored by the US. Even now, freedom-loving, peace-keeping Muslims have to endure Americans associating their religion with that of global terrorists. Just 40 years ago and beyond Blacks couldn't vote and were widely subjected to domestic terrorism. Additionally, 40 years ago there were no legal protections against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or physical disability. Just over 60 years ago, America had anyone who looked Japanese herded into Midwestern internment camps indefinitely. White women couldn't vote up to a few decades prior to that. And though she could stomach 100+ years of bringing people of color to America involuntarily, in 1882 America passed her first anti-immigration law against persons of Chinese descent, thus canonizing America's historic practice of overwhelmingly and disproportionately favoring European immigration, while closely regulating immigration from nations of color (a practice that has never been redressed and won't be by only sealing the boarders). I won't elaborate on the sad fact that Christendom has never taken a strong stand against any of these injustices.

Although I can appreciate many privileged Americans' nostalgia, I can't in good conscience share it--nor do I believe should anyone else.

Be Not Deceived

Lest anyone be subject to the wrong impression, let me be clear. I have been an Obama man since the moment he announced his bid for the Presidency. From the moment he opened his mouth at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he has captured my imagine.

My secret wish is for an Obama & Edwards ticket. (Shhhh, don't tell anyone. I don't want to jinx it!) I believe they would be politically unstoppable. Plus, I think Edwards is right, no matter how some try to write him off as "angry". One would be naive to expect that the powerful are going to be cooperative in negotiating their power away. I just think that is more of a legislative argument and agenda, which would be perfect for the President of the Senate. Since I'm spinning a dream here, I would love to see Joe Biden as Secretary of Defense, Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of a new department of Peace and Dr. Mae Carol Jamison somewhere in Obama's cabinet. Maybe she should head the Peace Department, and Obama could put Kucinich elsewhere. I'll leave that for him to decide.

I just didn't want to give the wrong impression by the fact that I've been writing about Republicans of late.

Christo-fascism

Adapted and cross-posted on RAW.



After the '08 New Hampshire Republican debate, I feel I need to say this.

Once and for all, it is unmistakably arrogant, malicious and inflammatory for a Western, non-practitioner of Islam to use any derivation of the term "Islam" (e.g. "Islamo-fascist," "Islamic terrorist") in an attempt to designate America's enemy in the so-called War on Terror—and unless you are a practitioner of Islam your assumed right to rebut this point goes a long way toward proving my assertion. I can make the assertion as a non-practitioner of Islam in humble others-interest, because it is a self-critique, but for a non-practitioner of Islam to try to defend the practice of constructing such labels is an act of self-absorption predicated on the hegemonic idea that we have the unassailable right to characterize anyone else however we see fit. If that's not arrogance, then the word has lost all meaning! All you can do, non-follower of Islam, is take a moment, consider the possibility and pay attention to how Muslims themselves perceive what we do.

In the debate, the other candidates kept trying to treat Ron Paul like he was the crazy uncle at the dinner table, belittling him for pointing out that Islamic discontent with America doesn't ferment in a vacuum. Though reactionary in instances, it has cause, and perhaps, justification. (Note I said discontent, not terrorism, has justification.) Why is Muslim humanity so hard for us to concede?

What brought all this to mind for me was the exchange in the debate in response to Huckabee's characterization of the Bush administration's policies as "arrogant" and evincing "a bunker mentality." The conversation reminded me of a Seinfeld sketch of Kramer arguing with himself, "I'm not arrogant; you are! No you're arrogant, not me! But let's not forget those good-for-nothing Islamic terrorists! They're the transcendent bogeymen of the 21st century!"

How dare we freely associate the hatefulness of terrorists such as Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden with the faith of over 1 billion peace-loving people who walk in the way of submission to Allah? With all the indisputable, documented atrocities perpetrated by the Western world over the last two millennia in the name of Christianity—up to and including the War on the Middle East—have we ever once dubbed the proponents and perpetrators of the Crusades, Colonial Expansion, the Inquisition, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Jim Crow, the Holocaust, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima or South African Apartheid "Christian Terrorists"?

No! Emphatically no. And we never will. Why? Because we believe that such "excesses" (isn't that such an wonderfully innocuous term), though unapologetically supported by Christians of that time and place, do not reflect the beauty of the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith. And since those in power continue to be predominately of Christian heritage, we get to tell our story however we want to remember it.

It wouldn't be arrogant that we won't afford Muslims the same right to define themselves—would it?

The Irony of Evangelicalism

"For many [Iowa] Republican caucus participants, faith was a determining factor. More than eight in 10 Huckabee supporters said they are born again or evangelical Christians, compared to less than half of those who supported his rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. Nearly two-thirds of Huckabee backers also said it was very important that their candidate share their religious beliefs, compared to about one in five of Romney's."

The last sentence above is perhaps the most intriguing and ironic factoid I read about Huckabee's caucus win in Iowa yesterday. What's intriguing is that it is so telling, but why one would want to confess that about themselves, I do not know. What's ironic is that it is perhaps shear opposite of what the first Christians in this country, or at least the writers of the Constitution, thought most conducive for an experiment in freedom.

If I remember my history lessons accurately, Pilgrims ran from the Old World to the New because those in power in the Old World thought exactly like the two-thirds of Huckabee's Iowa caucus supporters. Thus it was that 167 years after the arrival of the Pilgrims religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution as one of the highest ideals in the land. More than a century and a half could not erase the memory of the damage done to human dignity when a subset of a nation's citizenry believes it is important that those with power share their specific religious beliefs and sensibilities. Yet it has only taken 2 centuries more, plus 20 years to begin to do so. That's, in a word, SCARY.

Those who tout the importance of religious commonality often self-identify as "conservatives." In conservation of what? It can't be in conservation of the founding ideals of this nation. No such ideal existed. At most it's in conservation of the parts of the old that inevitably hold over into the new, but why would one want to hold over the seeds of religious intolerance and possibly even fascism? Perhaps its the conservation of notions of divinely ordained dominion aggrandized by unfortunate misappropriations of biblical imagery used in furtherance of political ends (e.g. America as Reagan's "city on a hill") and validated by a misinterpretation of the biblical commission to "possess the land." I find neither conservatism nor liberalism useful ideological constructs in a global, 21st century, post-modern world. Most of the world that conservatism is trying to conserve and from which liberalism is trying to liberate itself no longer exists, accept in instances where shear stubbornness or abuse of power have preserved it. Nevertheless, if one is going to conserve in a democracy, shouldn't it be the conservation of something that exists for the good of more than just those trying to keep it?

The further irony is that Huckabee presents as a populist. I pray it is an authentic persona. Sure, he has strong religious convictions. Some of his views based upon those convictions sound downright kooky when exploited by the unforgiving hands of an unsympathetic media. Perhaps they are no more kooky than my own (okay, maybe a little more). However, he seems to have reconciled himself to the fact that in a democracy his convictions are not the "one ring to rule them all." He does not seem predisposed to legislate his belief system upon everyone else. Moreover, he expresses believable compassion and actionable concern for those unlike himself, which has not been a trademark of the typical religiously or otherwise motivated conservative.

Don't get me wrong: I don't agree with many of Huckabee's policies (e.g. imigration reform, the war on the Middle East and the bodily autonomy of women). But in Huckabee I find a conservative with motivations beyond his own self-interests. That may be ironic, but it's also refreshing.

God Bless... My Wife

I went to a friend's blog, Willzhead, to get some perspective on the Obama and Huckabee wins last night. Will is a former Republican strategist. Though we are journeymen now, our journeys of emergence have been from very different places. To my chagrin, Will didn't have time to say much this morning, but he did put up a link to "The Two Earthquakes" by David Brooks, a conservative-leaning political commentator with whom I've been having an unexpected and somewhat disconcerting ideological love affair of late. As with Will, Brooks' views on the Iowa caucuses resonate with my own.

As a side note, the reason this post is entitled "God Bless... My Wife" is because, when I read to her the article by David Brooks, half way through I stopped and exclaimed, "This man can write!" to which she responded, "That's someone else and not you... He writes like you." Please let this in no way discourage you from reading the article.

It's amazing how God gives us the gift of those who believe in us more than we sometimes believe in ourselves. Perhaps that's some of what Obama and Huckabee are feeling this morning.

More later...

While Not Saying a Whole Lot

I woke up this morning and started the plot sketch for my first novel. I decided to write it in late October, but I've been sitting on my writing for a brief moment, waiting to catch a glimpse of where it is headed. Not really interested in my Village Half-wit tales, one editor recommended I consider the alternative of a loosely biographical novel covering the year leading up to the excommunication of my favorite storyteller protagonist, Revelations. At first, I really didn't believe I had it in me, but the peculiar circumstances of things falling apart on the job front for several friends as well as myself inspired me.

I haven't been anxious to write because of the nature of the critique I've gotten on my storytelling so far. Either people "love it" and make comments that are wonderfully affirming, but are of limited use in my efforts to improve and publish. Or their criticism is primarily that my writing isn't more like something else, and that is to say, that it isn't commercially viable. Such is life.

Well, I've started. We'll see what comes of it.

I'm Back!

...With a new look and a new outlook on life (not really a "new" outlook, although...). It's been way too long since I've blogged. For the few people who've checked in with me periodically, I thank you. I'll spend the better part of this year reflecting on the '08 presidential campaign. Listen in, when you have a moment. But more importantly, make it a dialogue!