One of LightGirl’s most favorite little girl books was a lesser known book called, I Went Walking. It featured a small child who walked around her world discovering animals of varying colors who were looking at her. LightGirl adored this book and it was in her hands as required reading most days; sometimes two or three times a day. Walking with friends is still one of her favorite pastimes.
So it came as no surprise when I heard from her that a group of her friends had gone walking from their home to a nearby shopping center for dinner lovely spring evening. I was driving the friends and the LightChildren from pillar to post (and a stop at Dairy Queen for sustenance) the next day. They were recounting their adventures on the sleepover (not so much sleep) with dinner (Chinese) and their walk when they told the following story:
“While we were out walking this group of brown-skinned kids came up to us. They said they were new to the area and didn’t know very many kids yet. They seemed to be really cool. They told us their names and we told them ours. And we were talking. I (LightGirl) was thinking that this was really cool that we were going to make new friends right here on the street like that. I thought it was really cool because they seemed genuinely interested in us. And then all of a sudden they started in with this stuff about Jesus loves us too and we should come to their church. “Yeah, Matt wanted to say something like he’s a Satan worshiper. [giggle giggle] I wanted to say that I love Jesus too, I love listening to those fictional bedtime stories before I go to sleep. [more laughter] “Did you guys notice how long they waited for us outside the restaurant? Yeah, we stayed there til like 10 and that’s past their bedtime.”
“While we were out walking this group of brown-skinned kids came up to us. They said they were new to the area and didn’t know very many kids yet. They seemed to be really cool. They told us their names and we told them ours. And we were talking. I (LightGirl) was thinking that this was really cool that we were going to make new friends right here on the street like that. I thought it was really cool because they seemed genuinely interested in us. And then all of a sudden they started in with this stuff about Jesus loves us too and we should come to their church.
“Yeah, Matt wanted to say something like he’s a Satan worshiper. [giggle giggle] I wanted to say that I love Jesus too, I love listening to those fictional bedtime stories before I go to sleep. [more laughter]
“Did you guys notice how long they waited for us outside the restaurant? Yeah, we stayed there til like 10 and that’s past their bedtime.”
I talked to them all about the event a little bit. If I’m interpreting their responses correctly, and I think I am, they felt a little bit betrayed and used. And sort of angry. These are a really good group of kids who offer their friendship very openly to any who ask. They do not discriminate based on anything. I have seen them open their ranks to all kinds of teens, from all walks of life. Literally … all are welcomed. Then this very openness was turned and used as a tool for sales on them.
I tried to apologize for those in my faith who feel the need to use the openness of others to assuage their own sense of helplessness. But the words died in my throat. After all, the encounters with Jesus or his disciples did not leave people feeling used for someone else’s ends. Why is that so often the case with His 21st century followers?
The bright blue sedan sped merrily down that major artery; providing oxygen on an otherwise dreary journey into the city. Small and fuel-efficent, there were a number of profiles the driver might fit into. But it was the array of festive bumper stickers that made the car merry. They were happy; cheeky. Then there was the central sticker, located under the brake light: “I pray that God isn’t too picky.”
Hmmmm …
That one made me think of the firestorm that has recently engulfed the social media world (blogs, twitter, facebook) concerning a certain book by a certain young cheeky pastor (Rockstar) and his (potential) views on Hell and who might go there.
I never planned to write about this one. I don’t care about it. Mostly, I’m no theologian. The finer points that these people are arguing make my head spin and in a world where much more interesting things are happening (like democracies emerging in the Middle East) and tragedies must be observed (Japan), my poor brain has very little space left over for jots and tittles. But then, along sped this merry little automobile and I began to think.
Why is it that the Gospel, the so-called Good News, has become this? Yay! When you die, you don’t go to your room. If you are very, very lucky or something … you get to go to God’s room.
Now. I know that a bunch of people are going to come on here in comments to correct my description of the Gospel. Yep. You are all probably correct. I’m not talking about that. I’m writing about what our popular culture HEARS from the church. Because it doesn’t matter what we think we’re saying. What matters is what people hear. If what people hear sounds like the teachers/adults in a Charlie Brown television special, why then it doesn’t really matter what Rockstar writes (good, bad or ugly) or what his detractors say about him … because the only people listening are the choir.
The church is now arguing over how many camels will fit on the head of a pin … really?
This year has been interesting here in the LightHouse. By year, I mean calendar year. The year which began on January 1, 2011.
One could speculate that it all really began back in the holiday season of 2010. Yep, I think that’s where I’ll start.
We were busy (as usual) prepping for Christmas, getting gifts sent. Purchasing gifts for each other and friends. Wrapping, decorating, baking. Best of all, anticipating the arrival of LightMom and TheGrandPea for a Christmas visit. We love having my parents visit and hanging out with them. There aren’t a lot of expectations and we just take things as they come. There was one thing I wanted to do; I wanted to see True Grit with both my parents, but especially with my dad. We both love westerns, you see (so does my mom) and I remembered that he had seen the original when it came out.
Something was off though. Something with me. I was walking through thigh deep water and could not get myself together. Plus I had a horrible cough that would not let go. When LightMom says, “You really need to see the doctor.” Yep. You make the call. Off I went. And came home with a diagnosis of pneumonia.
That just takes all the fun out of everything.
So, I spent January recovering from pneumonia. It’s a long slow boring slog.
LightHusband (in the meantime) was having a series of treatments on his back which left him … well … on his back for most of January and February. A home with two teenagers and no drivers for the better part of a month was … ahhhh … interesting. We muddled through, but none of us are really sure how that happened.
Along came March and I got sick AGAIN! This time no pneumonia, just an ordinary upper respiratory infection/bronchitisy kind of thing. The problem was that my lungs had not fully recovered from the pneumonia and it put me flat on my back because I couldn’t breath. This time though I fought the beast hard. I sequestered myself in our guest room with not one, but two vaporizers going. LightHusband brought me a television and meals. And that’s where I was for about 18 – 20 hours a day for the better part of a week.
Now one would think (being an introvert and all) that being alone in a room for 18 – 20 hours a day would be heaven. And I won’t deny that there are parts of that journey that I loved. I loved being able to say, “I’m going away now for awhile, I need to rest.” Sometimes that rest was just as much mental/emotional as it was physical. But, that room got awfully tiny after a while and I wanted to be out and around people. It got lonely in that room. When you have to make a hot, steamy environment for yourself, people don’t like to visit too often … even when they are family. And, like all sick rooms, apparently it began to take on a certain aroma, defined by LightHusband as “sweat and stale bananas.” I told him that it was the tropical atmosphere 😉 …
One thing it did give me was a lot of time to think … and read. I’ve been reading a lot about what’s going politically and economically in our country. No surprise there. And I am disturbed. Deeply, profoundly disturbed. The progress and protections that were put in place for children, for women, for the disenfranchised of all ilk in the 20th century are being attacked at every level … both in state and federal legislation. I cannot keep quiet any longer.
I started this blog July 2005 as an exercise in community. I am no longer a member of that community and have not been for four years this week. The focus changed and for a long time I wrote about the state of the church and often about women in the church. There’s not much more for me to say about that here. It’s been said. And I think that is why my pen (keyboard) has been still for so long. I haven’t had anything new to say.
Calaciriya is a place. A mythical place to be sure. But a place nonetheless. It is a place that is noted but once in the Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Rings (I think on page 229?). The translation of the name is “Ravine of Light.” And that is where this blog gets it’s name and it’s focus from … to be light shining in darkness. To be a place of light. A place where we can be reminded of who we are, who we are meant to be and what we can strive for. So the minutae of this blog is going to change and I will be writing more from a justice perspective. How does love (sometimes specifically Christian love) intersect in the public sphere to create justice? What does that look like now and what could it look like?
What, indeed, are we striving for?
One of the best new things about this school year has been that I’m teaching/leading a class with some of the LightChildren’s peers. We started out with about 15 students, and we’re down to about 8 or 9 now. That’s okay because we’re intense and learning a lot. It’s a philosophy class. We’re using a text book called (without much inspiration), Philosophy For Teens: Questioning Life’s Big Ideas. It’s a really good text which is introducing the kids to a lot of great philosophers and (yeah, I’ll say it) big ideas. Lately class has consisted of the kids reading the chapter and then we discuss the ideas contained therein. This unit of four chapters is focusing on justice and began with a chapter on civil rights (Malcomb X). The chapter we discussed the other day moved to animal rights. That chapter opened with a dialogue between two boys about whether one of them had the right to force his dog to jump through a burning hoop and withhold food when the animal refused to comply.
So. Of course, I opened our discussion with cell phones. All of the students have one. I wanted to know how they took care of their cell phones (there was a range of caring from downright love to abuse), how they would respond if their cell phone was lost or mangled, and how they would respond if/when the cell phone was replaced. We talked about that for a while and I moved them to an understanding of the idea that cell phones are “property.” They got that. Everyone was happy. But I sucked in my breath because I knew what I was about to do and it was going to be hard.
I asked them to think about our last class when we talked about civil rights and slavery. I asked them to take a moment and consider all of the ideas we had just expressed about property as they concerned our cell phones and apply those ideas to human beings as slaves. Everyone stopped for just a few seconds. Most of the kids didn’t quite know where to put their eyes. One even said, “Wow. This isn’t so funny when we’re talking about people.” Then we spent a few minutes talking about how just as there had been a spectrum of care for cell phones, there was a spectrum of care for slaves. That most people throughout history had been considered property at one time or another (feudalism) and that slavery has existed in many forms. We talked about slavery today (sex trade and child warriors). I recommended “Half the Sky” by Nicholas Kristoff to them because if they can handle this discussion, they can more than handle that book.
We needed a break at this point. I knew ahead of time that this class was going to be hard and uncomfortable. That my wonderful students were going to need some sustenance and assistance to get through this. So I made brownies for them to have at break (it’s a two hour class). There’s nothing like a brownie to boost your spirits and keep you going during a rough spot. If I’d had my whole act together, I’d have had milk for them to drink with the brownies. But I only had half my act together. They all wanted the brownie recipe … so here it is, because some of you might need some sustenance too. I got the original here, but I tinkered with it and my tinkering is below:
Brownies From Heaven
1. In a saucepan over low heat, melt butter and chocolate; cool for 10 minutes. 2. In a mixing bowl, beat eggs with wire whisk. Add sugars, vanilla and salt, beating after each addition with whisk. 3. Stir in the chocolate mixture. Add flour and nuts; mix well. >4. Pour into a greased 11-in. x 7-in. x 2-in. baking dish. Bake at 325 degrees F for 45-50 minutes or until a toothpick inserted near the center comes out with moist crumbs. Cool.
I think peanut butter frosting or adding chocolate chips to this would be even more heavenly … but I didn’t have the chance to try either of those. Ohhh … or I might add dried cherries and cream cheese frosting the next time I make these. Yum!
Weren’t those good? Are you revived enough to continue our discussion? Well, the students were. I told you … they are great kids. I am really privileged to have the opportunity to meet with them, hear their ideas, and share mine with them.
After the break we carried on and moved to animal rights. We talked about how animals are different from humans. They are not really sentient beings and some cannot care for themselves, so we must care for them. We talked about their relative intelligence and shared our favorite pet stories. I shared some information from this sort of creepy article on crows and how they can recognize humans, pass on information to future generations and generally are smarter than you think. This lead to a discussion on what rights should we give animals in the wild (i.e. wolves vs. sheep in our western states). We talked about how it’s uncomfortable but okay to discuss euthanizing an animal, but that sort of discussion is off the table for people. So we ended up in a place where we agreed that animals occupy a grey area. They have rights, but they are sort of property … sort of. It’s something we will probably discuss again.
Interestingly, at the very end of class one of the students wondered what would happen to a grizzly bear that had killed a man. We joked about sentencing the bear to jail … the zoo. Until the kids realized that wasn’t so funny. Then another student wondered about dogs who had been so abused that they attacked people. What happened to those animals. Could they be redeemed? And we decided that some could. But some cannot. So they decided that the ones who cannot should be euthanized. So, I asked them … what should we do about the very real problem of criminals who cannot be rehabilitated? What do we do with those individuals who are repeat offenders, who do their time in prison, but get out and are worse … sexual offenders, murderers, etc.? I asked them to think about that and we’ll pick it up there at the next class.
But I have to say … these kids are fearless.
As long as I give them brownies.
I had a fairly interesting, if exhausting, Friday afternoon. I spent it surrounded by teenagers. So it was a good afternoon. I was teaching them some new skills and bumping them just out of their comfort zones, so it was a little bit exhausting. But mostly it was fun, because this group of teens is full of humor and good spirits and I enjoy spending time with them.
It’s a group of teens (and their moms or other parental units) that the LightChildren and I joined about a year ago to add some fun, fieldtrippy kind of activity to our school. We meet once a week and do “stuff” together. We’ve built things at the National Building Museum. We’ve sorted eyeglasses with a local Lions Club. We’ve done a scavenger hunt at an art museum. We’ve gone to countless movies, played laser tag, board games and gone swimming in a variety of water sources. We’ve built structures out of canned goods. We’ve thought really hard about building medieval siege weapons. This past Friday we made Cooling Neck Wraps for soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will donate them through an organization known as Operation Gratitude (if you want to donate some stuff to soldiers, you can click on that link and find out how). There we were a room full of teenagers learning how to iron, and mark and sew. Of course, they are teenagers so the ratio of talking to working was kind of high, but we still got a good bit done. And the teens peeked out of their comfort zones just a little and looked around. It was good for everyone.
Me? I felt like a walking signboard for irony that afternoon. I despise those wars. I think I’ve made it pretty clear here in my little corner of teh webz that I do not believe in the principle of a just war. Nor do I believe that it is our role to play policeman throughout the world. In short, we overstepped in a huge way in both countries, so why did I expend considerable time and effort supporting the soldiers of these wars?
Some days I’m not so sure of that myself. Other days I remember what it’s like to be in the Army. You are not your own. The service owns you and unless an order is specifically illegal, you must obey it. You cannot volunteer for service and then claim conscientious objector status because you think the war is illegal. That just doesn’t fly, especially since we’ve been at war for 10 and 8 years now. So we/I cannot hold the soldiers responsible for these wars; they are doing their best in a bad situation. I feel for them. Patriotic mythology notwithstanding, they have been put in harm’s way by an empire that views them as fodder for it’s mill. I can but attempt to remember their humanity.
Remember that childhood nursery rhyme? We used it to ward off name-calling and taunts; as an umbrella of protection when words rained down pain upon our little heads:
Sticks and stones may break my bones But words will never hurt me.
Then we all grew up and we learned how much power there is in words. We learned that words, when they are repeated over and over again, can become a person’s reality and perception. We understand now that name-calling and taunts create a poisonous environment for children and workers. We even have a name for this … we call it bullying and it has garnered a negative reputation nationwide. Behaviour that makes some people uncomfortable by putting them down, threatening them with harm, making pejorative statements about their ethnicity, gender or any other physical characteristic OR their belief system is generally considered off limits. This is considered negative behaviour and in many cases is shunned or disallowed. Why? Because “nice” people don’t do that, sweetie. People who are educated, with manners; people who want to be known by their self-control (as ladies or as gentlemen) don’t do those kinds of things to others.
Yet there is one large crevice where we still allow this sort of bad behaviour. Nay … there are some portions of our culture who even encourage it. That would be our political culture. Our political culture (and one party in particular) takes pleasure in name calling, insults based on race, gender and physical characteristics and creating a poisonous environment for others.
What happened in Tucson was tragic. But it was only a matter of time. And frankly, I am surprised it did not happen sooner than this. I expected this sort of thing to happen on the campaign trail last October. Yes, that young man is mentally deranged and that is very sad. But mentally deranged people listen to rhetoric just like the rest of us. The only difference is … many people with these mental health issues cannot separate rhetoric from reality.
That is why putting out websites with crosshairs on Democrats and encouraging your followers to carry weapons to rallies (even though they may -or may not- be unloaded) is dangerous. While people have every right to do those things, those are not necessarily the most responsible or the most gracious things to do. Encouraging your followers to stop and accost motorists with bumper stickers of your opposition on their car with antagonistic, insulting, and pejorative questions is not responsible leadership. It makes for great drama and excellent ratings, but it creates an atmosphere of poison and hate. This is the sort of atmosphere which will bring the mentally challenged people out with their guns (in this case a Glock 9mm … because I’m certain that’s an excellent hunting weapon) to hunt people.
And in this poisonous atmosphere that we have created, please don’t anyone act surprised. Because now we have lowered ourselves to the level of many developing nations where they shoot politicians when they don’t like them.
These words were spoken by Clinton in 2010 as he reflected on the Oklahoma City bombing: “The words we use really do matter. There’s this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike.” h/t Liz Dyer
I remember an Advent season 17 years ago. I was expecting our first child and we anticipated the birth in late January. It was a very busy season as I was then working for Prison Fellowship and had found their Project Angel Tree program. I was very inspired by this program and brought it to our church. I loved Chuck Colson’s books, especially The Body. It had given feet to my faith and a place for my passion. I think arch-conservative Chuck Colson would be astonished to know that his book inspired at least one reader to a faith that breathes social justice rather than moral correctness, but that is for another blog post.
I was very, very busy; spending all my free time at our church. I was organizing Project Angel Tree, I was involved with our youth group (Jr. High at the time) and I was working. Since this was the first year our church had done Angel Tree there was a lot of organizing and out right marketing to be done. We could have delivered the gifts to individual homes, but I wanted to have a party (because that’s how I roll). If I remember correctly, the jr. high kids helped me out with this party quite a bit. I don’t remember too much about the party other than that I loved doing it and that the Angel Tree Children were happy for an afternoon … so were the parents and grandparents. They all came in with varying degrees of wariness shrouding their faces, but left wreathed in smiles. We may not have shared the gospel in words that day, but we did it in deed.
As it turned out, I nearly worked myself to death that Advent season. I went for a pre-natal check up two days after Christmas and my blood pressure was sky high; I had all the symptoms of pre-eclampsia, a dangerous condition for both mother and child. It was bed rest for the duration of my pregnancy (my due date was Jan 24) for me. I whined, I cried, I tried reason and logic … but the doctor would not budge. Bed rest. On my left side. This was apparently quite serious. And fortunately for me, LightGirl decided to make an early appearance on Jan. 1, so I only spent about 5 days on bed rest rather than 5 weeks.
My intervening Advent seasons have been no less busy, but slightly less health impairing. This season we have between Thanksgiving and Christmas and which has now seemed to stretch to Halloween, is filled with plans, and gifts, and parties; movies, sparklies, decorating, and food … not just any food, but special food traditions. All of it is good. But the pressure and the process can be overwhelming, as LightHusband expressed the other day, “I hate this time of year. It’s just one more responsibility in a life of unmet responsibilities.”
So I began to think about waiting. What is it that we do when we wait? Waiting involves changing what we do. It involves watching or paying attention; being alert to changes that would signal the arrival of that which we wait for. Waiting means being prepared for that arrival. We will have cleaned the house, tidied the bathroom, prepared a feast, and changed the linens in the guest room. Once those tasks are done, we put music on and we wait … ears tuned, eyes watching the road.
If we are waiting upon the birth of a child, we prepare the nursery. Gifts of vast quantity yet tiny proportion are given. Diapers abound. Depending upon the socio-economic status of the parent(s), there will be car seats and strollers, wipe warmers and night lights, toys and crib danglies to spare. We are raising baby einsteins as our culture reminds us. Mother will carefully put everything away each tiny thing in it’s own special place. As her womb grows more and more unwieldy and uncomfortable, she will slow down and become more alert to the changes in her body that signal the arrival of her baby. She waits.
And I wondered, how do we connect these pictures of peaceful waiting with the frenetic busy-ness that our holiday season has come to represent? The church is no different than the culture at large in this regard. There are special parties, ornament making gatherings to bring your unchurched friends to, extra worship services (and if you’re involved with putting those on – extra practices/development time) … in short, lots of busy-ness. And I haven’t even mentioned the singular craziness of Christmas cards one time in this post!
More and more I was seeing my Advent journey as a road to nowhere, the Advent Sunday mileposts nothwithstanding. Without having the time and space during the season to be calm, aware and alert to changes that signal the arrival of that baby Christ Child, I would plod ahead often distracted by all the shiny baubles, happy songs and pretty parties of a holiday season too busy for waiting. So I learned to build in time. I make Christmas gifts instead of purchasing them and that allows me time to meditate on the recipient, pray for them and love them as I make their gifts. I make food from scratch rather than from boxes and spend time finding recipes … not every day, but some days. Last, I limit the commitments I make to just the things I either absolutely must do, or the things I absolutely love to do. There is only one thing I absolutely must do (in support of LightHusband) the rest are things I love to do.
And I’ve given up on Christmas cards. They were too much for me.
I won’t say this has cured everything. But cutting out some of the distractions has helped my road to nowhere become a little bit more Bethlehem bound; it’s still very circuitous and mostly I don’t know where I’m going (because my donkey does not have a GPS! ). But this has helped my journey be more peaceful and me to be more gracious and kind in a season where nerves are usually stretched thin and fraying at the edges.
**************************************************************************
This is part of our December Synchroblog series – Advent – A Journey. Please follow some of the links below for some excellent reading on the subject!
As one of the three women who work together to get the synchroblog going each month, it’s really pitiful that here I am … bringing up the rear in November. But something was stopping me from writing this month. Oh, I have plenty to say on the topic (Voices of the Marginalized) and there were/are many directions I felt I could take. Yet every time I wanted to write, I couldn’t. There was a time when I would have fretted and fussed. Sat down and made something up. But if I’ve learned anything over the last five or six years, I’ve learned how to wait. How to be patient. How to let things percolate and bubble to the surface. And last night as I was drifting off to sleep, I finally knew what to write about. So here I am this morning … a couple days late, and a couple dollars short. I hope you find it worthy.
Marginalization results in an individual’s exclusion from meaningful participation in society and it’s source is many. Economic circumstances, illness, disability, geographical location, gender, sexuality, race, religion are all dominant sources of individuals being marginalized. Sometimes it’s easy to see holidays or certain systems from a position of power or privilege. * As God’s people, what does it mean to see the world through the eyes of the marginalized? What is it like to be one of the marginalized? How can we be part of bridging some of these gaps?
Marginalization results in an individual’s exclusion from meaningful participation in society and it’s source is many. Economic circumstances, illness, disability, geographical location, gender, sexuality, race, religion are all dominant sources of individuals being marginalized. Sometimes it’s easy to see holidays or certain systems from a position of power or privilege. * As God’s people, what does it mean to see the world through the eyes of the marginalized?
Here in the LightHouse we’ve been discussing some particularly knotty extended family issues over the last week or so. This has been an ongoing conversation that has ebbed and flowed around work schedules, hockey schedules, and our emotional barometers. We have worked it around to a place where we realized we are not free to say, “No, this or that will not work for us.” within this relationship. Well, I suppose we are free to say that, but the emotional damage to the relationship will be very high. In order to maintain the relationship, we are required to affirm the other party’s desires, no matter what else is going on with us.
It struck me as I was drifting off to sleep last night, that this is the quintessential difference between those who are in and those who are marginalized. Those who are in have power, are equals and may say yes or no to whatever they please. They have the freedom to choose their lives and their horizons. Those who have been pushed to the edges do not have this freedom, they are required to say yes in order to maintain their relationship with those in power around them. Their choices/our choices are then limited by what they are given to say yes to. A relationship between equals will allow negotiation; it will allow for a yes OR a no. A relationship between a powerful and a powerless will only allow for a yes and negotiation will be minimal at best.
What this means is that those who are marginalized in our country are not free. They are bound by invisible bonds. The ties are tightly woven and they are kept in place (in some cases over generations) just as surely as those of a plantation owner in the Antebellum South. We tell ourselves that now we no longer capitalize on human suffering, but is that really true? Perhaps if we took a different perspective on the relationship of power and wealth vs. poverty, we might begin to see how much of our power grid really does still capitalize on human suffering; on some humans having less than others and on a zero-sum paradigm of the world.
And as I was thinking all of this through, I remembered the words of the Apostle Paul again, in the letter to the church at Galatia:
All of you are God’s children because of your faith in Christ Jesus. And when you were baptized, it was as though you had put on Christ in the same way you put on new clothes. Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman. (Gal. 3:26-28)
That is the gospel of freedom. That we would all be free to make our yes be yes and our no be no. To be equal with one another. That in the end, our relationships with one another will not be driven by who is powerful and who is powerless, but by love. And our mission during our brief stint here is bring the Kingdom to the dusty corners that we find. Help those in our path see new horizons and find ways to speak; to say no when they need to and yes only when they want to. To have healthy relationships based on love, rather than warped relationships based on fear or power.
************************************************************************************
As I wrote above, this is a synchroblog post, and no synchroblog would be complete without a list of juicy links for you to read at the end. Please take some time to read what others have written on this important subject. Thanks!
… in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Part Two of Three
Yesterday I posted about some research I did into a group of candidates who are running under the canopy of the Tea Party. Today I’ll tell you why I think some of them will win, why I don’t think they will change very much and why I think their policy directives are dead wrong, despite being winsome and appealing on a superficial level. They have a lot of emotion behind them. Voters of all stripes (including yours truly) are justifiably angry at the events (financial and military) of the last several years. We are rapidly coming to an uncomfortable junction in our country. We have choices to make about who we are and how we will continue. Will we mature into a reasonable adult nation-state, or do we want to continue in our rash, brash youth? Will we allow all voices to speak and be heard without pejoratives and bullying? Or will we continue to cat-call and rank people according to their “patriotism” (by which I mean do their thoughts most closely align with mine … or yours … or whoever is making the call at the moment)?
Tomorrow (in part three) I’m going to write about why I see the close alignment of churches with any political system as a very dangerous place for the church and her people to be. I see this happening more frequently and abundantly on the right, but the left has it’s share of (Jim Wallis and Sojourners) syncophants as well. But that story is for tomorrow.
Overall, and from the best that I can tell without engaging in the practice of divination or something equally magical, it appears to me that the candidates I looked at have conflated the Constitution with the original document our founders operated under, the Articles of Confederation:
While still at war with Great Britain, the Founding Fathers were divided between those seeking a powerful, centralized national government, and those seeking a loosely-structured one. Jealously guarding their new independence, members of the Continental Congress arrived at a compromise solution dividing sovereignty between the states and the Federal government, with a unicameral legislature that protected the liberty of the individual states. While calling on Congress to regulate military and monetary affairs, for example, the Articles of Confederation provided no mechanism with which to compel the States to comply with requests for either troops or revenue. At times, this left the military in a precarious position, as George Washington wrote in a letter in 1781 to the Governor of Massachusetts, John Hancock.
Many of the arguments and anger being currently expressed about the size and scope of the Federal Government, what it’s function is and the direction it should take may be traced back to the very roots of our foundation. When the Articles of Confederation proved to be ungainly and unworkable a very public debate commenced about what the nature of our fledgling government would be. It was engaged upon at many different levels, but most prominently in a series of published papers known as the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers (yeah, our Founders were not very creative). For an excellent commentary on the debate and the resulting compromises (eg. our Bill of Rights) see this. While today’s Tea Party harkens back to the folks who wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers (Sam Adams, George Clinton, Richard Henry Lee, etc.) that group would eventually evolve into today’s Democratic Party –
The Federalists were successful in their effort to get the Constitution ratified by all 13 states. The Federalists later established a party known as the Federalist Party. The party backed the views of Hamilton and was a strong force in the early United States. The party, however, was short-lived, dead by 1824. The Anti-Federalists generally gravitated toward the views of Thomas Jefferson, coalescing into the Republican Party, later known as the Democratic Republicans, the precursor to today’s Democratic Party. [emphasis added]
The Federalists were successful in their effort to get the Constitution ratified by all 13 states. The Federalists later established a party known as the Federalist Party. The party backed the views of Hamilton and was a strong force in the early United States. The party, however, was short-lived, dead by 1824.
The Anti-Federalists generally gravitated toward the views of Thomas Jefferson, coalescing into the Republican Party, later known as the Democratic Republicans, the precursor to today’s Democratic Party. [emphasis added]
Those original writers of the Anti-Federalist Papers would likely be considered libertarians (small “l”) by today’s standards and thus seem to have been adopted by the Tea Party faithful as icons of liberty in an age of increasing governmental interference. The goals they express are noble, however they often are conflicted when it comes to getting there. For 223 years “we the people” have chosen a less radical, more centralized form of government. Is that changing now? I don’t believe it is. I do believe that people are angry at the current turn of events and have focused their anger in the wrong place. This has been done for them by some very crafty people; the people who are responsible for the turn of events in the first place. The very, uber wealthy.
For today I’m going to go through each of the categories I used yesterday and get all dirty. Well … maybe not dirty. But I am going to use those categories and talk about the policies which are being promoted by these candidates are not necessarily the best choice for our country and/or our people. For this is the fundamental difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation posited the power and responsibility to the states. The Constitution posits the power and responsibility in the people. We the people of the United States …. Economy & Taxation
Of course, these are all conservative candidates so they believe in a very conservative paradigm for financial management. They all believe and pledged (to greater or lesser extents) to reduce the tax burden on all of us in order to get the economy working again. Several discussed the fault incumbent upon the current Congress for increasing the debt load; others discussed the current financial crisis as a problem that has been years in the making and were happy to spread the responsibility around to both the Bush and Obama administrations. All of the candidates were opposed to raising taxes. In fact, they were lock step in the notion that the tax burden must be decreased, especially on the very wealthy. It should also be decreased on all of us. This is a noble cause in light of the current debt burden we are now carrying from two wars and a lengthening financial crisis.
Of course, these are all conservative candidates so they believe in a very conservative paradigm for financial management. They all believe and pledged (to greater or lesser extents) to reduce the tax burden on all of us in order to get the economy working again. Several discussed the fault incumbent upon the current Congress for increasing the debt load; others discussed the current financial crisis as a problem that has been years in the making and were happy to spread the responsibility around to both the Bush and Obama administrations.
All of the candidates were opposed to raising taxes. In fact, they were lock step in the notion that the tax burden must be decreased, especially on the very wealthy. It should also be decreased on all of us. This is a noble cause in light of the current debt burden we are now carrying from two wars and a lengthening financial crisis.
The problem here is that the idea that lower taxes and less regulation will make the economy grow is simply and patently FALSE. There’s no way to sugarcoat this. It sounds lovely. To most of us it makes perfect sense. Give the people at the top more money and they will spend it and spread it around. What could be more sensical? Of course!! And the Daddy of all conservatives said this, Ronald Reagan, so it must be true. Heck, I even believed it for a long time. Problem is … there’s no data to bear this out. Every Republican Administration since Eisenhower stunk on every economic measure there is and every Democratic administration was golden. Yes, poodles … even and especially to include the Carter Administration. Carter’s great claim to fame, even in the midst of the horrible 70’s? Job creation. If I had a website to corroborate this, I’d send you to it, but I got this information from a book, Presimetrics, by Mike Kimel and Michael E Kanell.
While our goal is to avoid partisanship, we’re starting to see a pattern in the data. On most of the issues we’ve covered so far –and they’ve all been economic issues– Democrats have outperformed Republicans. This difference may be particularly galling here when it comes to income and wealth. After all, creating conditions needed to increase people’s income and make them wealthier is something Republicans pride themselves on, and the public perception is that they do it better than Democrats. How is it then that Republican administrations did so poorly relative to Democratic administrations? The answer can’t bederived from the data. But in part it looks to be because Democratic administration have presided over faster economic growth on average and do so without adding so much to the national debt as Republican administrations. It goes the other way as well, increasing people’s income and wealth can also lead to faster economic growth. And the policies Democrats have pursued have increased income and wealth more quickly than the policies Republicans have pursued. Democratic policies typically call for more inclusion, more focus on those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. By contrast, Republican policies have been more a “trickle-down” variety, the idea being that if the wealthy are made better off through lower tax burdens and less regulation, they will invest more in new ventures, expand existing businesses, and just generally toss more money into the economy, thereby helping to create jobs and improve the lives of everyone else. But perhaps the strategy of inclusion not only benefits those who would otherwse get a smaller piece of the pie but also increases the size of the whole pie for everyone. That is, a trickle-up economy seems to beat a trickle-down economy. So sayeth the data. (Kimel & Kanel, pps. 87-88)
While our goal is to avoid partisanship, we’re starting to see a pattern in the data. On most of the issues we’ve covered so far –and they’ve all been economic issues– Democrats have outperformed Republicans. This difference may be particularly galling here when it comes to income and wealth. After all, creating conditions needed to increase people’s income and make them wealthier is something Republicans pride themselves on, and the public perception is that they do it better than Democrats. How is it then that Republican administrations did so poorly relative to Democratic administrations?
The answer can’t bederived from the data. But in part it looks to be because Democratic administration have presided over faster economic growth on average and do so without adding so much to the national debt as Republican administrations. It goes the other way as well, increasing people’s income and wealth can also lead to faster economic growth. And the policies Democrats have pursued have increased income and wealth more quickly than the policies Republicans have pursued.
Democratic policies typically call for more inclusion, more focus on those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. By contrast, Republican policies have been more a “trickle-down” variety, the idea being that if the wealthy are made better off through lower tax burdens and less regulation, they will invest more in new ventures, expand existing businesses, and just generally toss more money into the economy, thereby helping to create jobs and improve the lives of everyone else. But perhaps the strategy of inclusion not only benefits those who would otherwse get a smaller piece of the pie but also increases the size of the whole pie for everyone. That is, a trickle-up economy seems to beat a trickle-down economy. So sayeth the data. (Kimel & Kanel, pps. 87-88)
What would happen if I were a talented and charismatic speaker? So talented and charismatic that I were to go out and begin convincing everyone that the sky is orange. I might be able to do this. I might even be able to convince a goodly proportion of the population that the sky is orange. It would be quite a feat. But let’s just suppose I’ve been able to do that. And they love me for it. Here’s the problem. The sky is still empirically blue. Just because everyone is walking around saying it’s orange now, does not actually change the fact of the matter. It’s still blue. And that’s what we have going on in our country right now. We have a lot of people who have been convinced by a few charismatic leaders (who have a dog in the race) that the sky is orange. Problem is, it’s still blue folks and you have a lot to loose by thinking it’s orange.
The people who are telling you it’s orange are the wealthiest people in the country. They are behind the curtains and want to reduce the tax rate. But they pay fewer taxes than any of us … Since 1992, the average tax rate on the richest 400 taxpayers in the US dropped from 26.8% to 16.62%. Source: US Internal Revenue Service. I’d love it if my tax rate was less than 20%, wouldn’t you? Yet they are still clamoring for lower taxes. And many of these folks are the same business leaders who come strolling around Congress looking for a handout when the specter of the Recession knocked on their door. Who is paying for their low tax rates AND their bailouts? We are. Now they also want us to pay the added costs of lower taxes and less regulation. Those costs will only be born by those of us who are poor and middle class … the voter. Don’t vote for the men behind curtain. Vote for we the people; the current plan is working but it will take time to get us out of this mess; month by slow month jobs are being created in the private sector. It is working, so vote to make the pie larger.
Energy Issues
This was the issue upon which there was probably the least consensus. Overall, most of the candidates stated that our reliance upon foreign oil resources was problematic for our economy and for industrial objectives. All of them were supportive of reducing our reliance upon foreign oil resources, but after that the consensus broke down. There were many different ideas about how the country should go about doing this, but all focused on a common thread that the free market would be the best place to determine the outcome.
Most of the candidates were very certain that it was an issue of national security that we decrease our dependence on foreign energy resources. Well, hooray for them. I “discovered” this fact back in 1978 while on my highschool debate team, so I’m really glad to know it’s filtered up to top echelons of government and at the glacial pace of 30 years. Unfortunately, most of them do not see the risks inherent in petroleum based fuel and insist that while relying on foreign energy resources is bad, we can ameliorate that problem with petroleum based and coal reserves here within our borders. Which is to say, most of them do not take the science behind climate change at all seriously. This is a mistake. It’s a mistake for many reasons … but the primary reason is that researching and developing alternative energy resources is an enormous job market. What a way to create jobs and employ people. It’s a huge win-win on all sides.
Family Values
All of the candidates made sure to define marriage on their issues page as a union between a man and a woman. Some took it no further than this. Others made certain that they clearly spelled out their opposition to same-sex marriage. They were also certain to declare their opposition to abortion in any form, except for cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother. There were exceptions to this, of the 11, 4 had participated in the Republican National Coalition PAC’s Life Questionnaire and declared their opposition to abortion in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother. Every candidate very clearly announced their support for the 2nd amendment (unfettered gun ownership) without any further governmental interference. NRA membership and endorsements were proudly sported on many of their websites.
All of the candidates made sure to define marriage on their issues page as a union between a man and a woman. Some took it no further than this. Others made certain that they clearly spelled out their opposition to same-sex marriage.
They were also certain to declare their opposition to abortion in any form, except for cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother. There were exceptions to this, of the 11, 4 had participated in the Republican National Coalition PAC’s Life Questionnaire and declared their opposition to abortion in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother.
Every candidate very clearly announced their support for the 2nd amendment (unfettered gun ownership) without any further governmental interference. NRA membership and endorsements were proudly sported on many of their websites.
I really struggle with the level of paradox that is involved with this section. There are so many, I scarcely know where to begin. This group of candidates expressed as their main concern that the rights of the individual are being trampled by state and federal government. Yet there seem to be certain individuals who must continue to be closely monitored by the government and their rights must be restricted. So the rights that the candidates were most concerned with would better be expressed as those of a Christian nature. They would very much like this country to become a Christian nation. Many express a desire to (re)turn to it’s Christian roots. This would be a misnomer, since there has always been, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, a wall of separation between the church and the state. A later Supreme Court justice (who’s name I am forgetting right now) would say that the wall metaphor was lacking and say that a fence was a better term because a fence allows some interaction between the two entities. But we (for very good reason) provide protection for our churches (and our synagogues, and our temples and our mosques and our nothing-at-alls) from the government. Because governments by nature are extremely capricious and mean.
Then there is the paradox involved with desiring to protect the lives of the “unborn” but not the lives of inner city children who are the most affected by the violence wrought by unfettered gun ownership (automatic and sub-automatic weapons). Listen, I’m no namby-pamby when it comes to guns and have eaten my fair share of venison. Most of the men in my family hunt, or would if they could. I support owning guns for the purpose of hunting and target shooting. BUT. The only reason that automatic/sub-automatic weapons and hand guns exist is to kill people. That is their only purpose. Ordinary people have no use for them. None. The 2nd Amendment was written for a different time and place; it can stand some tweaking. If mere potential human life in the womb is worth protecting, then so are the actual human beings (i.e. children) who live in the projects. ‘Nuff said.
Speaking of actual human beings who live in the projects … no … I’ll go into that in greater detail below.
But finally, I’m putting this here because I don’t know where else to put it. I’m tired of the battle lines over human life in politics. You can’t be pro-choice, or you’re a murder of helpless babies. If you’re pro-life, you hate women. It’s ridiculous. Here’s the thing. According to science (and that really is the best thing we have to go on right now) up until about 20 t0 24 weeks, the fetus is only the potential for human life. After that, the baby has a chance for survival outside of the mother, but the costs to society and the family are (potentially) enormous. Everyone has stories on both sides of miracles. My very own cousin was director of Planned Parenthood for years in the 70’s. She had an unplanned pregnancy. What do you think she did?
Here’s the thing, every single story of an unplanned pregnancy is different. Every. Single. One. And every pregnancy involves AT LEAST two people, plus the potential baby. Sometimes it involves more people. We must get past the idea that it’s just about the baby. Or just about the mother. There is always the mother, the father, grandparents. Potentially siblings. Maybe aunts and uncles. The potential baby could be arriving into a whole community. Or it could just be the mother and the baby. But to hear one side or the other tell the story it’s all about one, or all about the other. But it’s both. It’s both.
People who support choice for women are not baby-killers and people who want to limit abortions do not hate women, there has to be some middle ground.
Federal Government (size and function)/Entitlements
Every one of the candidates expressed their dismay at the large (bloated) size of the Federal Government. They all (to a greater or lesser degree) supported and/or would initiate legislation to decrease the size of the Federal Government … on anything not related to defense or national security. Or education. Or law enforcement/prisons. The candidates also were in general agreement that entitlement spending must be decreased with the goal of eventually removing it from the budget (privatizing Social Security) and getting rid of the other entitlement programs all together.
This was an area where I had some (limited) agreement with the candidates. Our litigious society has created a bloated and overweaning Federal Government anxious to protect us on all sides. We have created our own rubber room for ourselves and we find we do not like it. Every time we turn around it seems there is another form to fill out to prove we are not doing or about to do something wrong. What is up with that? And the tax forms!!! Ay yi yi … completely ridiculous. The forms alone are a solid argument for a flat tax … except well, a flat tax is a regressive tax, etc. etc. But I won’t go down that tangent.
Paradox alert – the only initiatives any seemed to have for reducing the size of the Federal Government was to simply cut non-Defense related spending. Just cut it and it will disappear. They also committed to current spending levels on Social Security and to increasing spending for care of our Veterans (which I agree with, in theory). However, Social Security and Dept of Defense spending are the TWO largest chunks of the pie at $677B and $666B, respectively. All of the candidates committed themselves to NOT privatizing or changing Social Security in any substantive manner in the near future. So that spending is just going to increase in the next 10 to 20 years. It must, as the bulk of the Baby Boom generation retires. Defense spending is always bloated and typically increases under Republican controlled Congresses. As tighter immigration restrictions are put in place and create higher costs, Homeland Security is going to require an increased budget. One of the proposals called for by Mike Lee (E-Verify) will cost $400 Million to implement (and I have that from an unnamed horse’s mouth). E-Verify is one short step away from a national ID and unless I was sleeping in logic class, a national ID would require more federal interference, not less. I’ll stick with my state driver’s license and be bothered with how much info the feds are getting from that already, thank you, kindly.
Health Care Reform
Most, if not all, are staunchly opposed to the healthcare reforms passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Obama (referred to disparagingly as Obamacare). They express the most concern about the provision which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance (and if they cannot afford it, it will be provided for them). There is also concern expressed about the so-called abortion clause; that is the candidates are firmly opposed to the notion that any taxpayer dollars might be used in support of abortion.
The main problem here is that the Tea Party in particular and Republicans in general are using a flawed premise when they argue that a majority of Americans do not support President Obama’s health care law. Technically speaking, the latest poll, taken in late September, proves they are correct. Approximately 73% of Americans expressed disapproval of the law. However, what that doesn’t tell you is that that disapproval rating is almost exactly split 50-50 … “Among likely voters, 36 percent said they want to revise the law so it does more to change the health care system. A nearly identical share — 37 percent — said they want to repeal it completely.” Getting the health care reform act substantively changed or repealed is going to be much more difficult than most of these candidates have been lead to anticipate.
What I found as I did my research is that most of the candidates were promoting many policy ideas that were very similar to the changes which were already put in place by the bill known pejoratively as Obamacare, with the exception of the part which requires people to have insurance. Many people seem to see this as socialism, which they mistake for communism. Communism and socialism are not equivalent, but that’s another story.
The way I see it is kind of like this … we are afforded many rights in this country and sometimes the state steps in to make sure we take advantage of those rights. For instance, the 6th Amendment to the Constitution states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. For approximately 190 years we had a free market system in operation for criminal defense. If you could afford a defense attorney you got one, if you couldn’t … well. Sometimes you got one, sometimes you didn’t. It depended on how well you knew your Bill of Rights and who you knew. This lead to the police using some fairly coercive interrogation techniques which in turn leads to questionable convictions. In 1966, the Supreme Court held that all defendants must be apprised of their Miranda rights, which include the right to defense counsel, with the classic addendum, “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” It behooves all of us to ensure that we all have appropriate defense counsel should the need arise. It would make a mockery of the land of the free and the home of the brave to have it filled with kangaroo courts throwing innocent and guilty alike into prison. By the same token, it behooves us all to ensure that all of us have adequate health insurance. This provides a number of benefits to all of us. First and foremost, it helps to keep all medical and insurance costs down because it keeps the playing field level. It keeps people from going to the emergency room with ordinary viruses and other ordinary medical needs because no doctor will treat them without insurance. So the emergency room staff is left to treat … emergencies and those costs will begin to stabilize as well. It will keep long term medical care costs down as well, because more illnesses will be discovered in the early (and thus more treatable) stages.
Immigration Issues
Immigration issues tended to be a hot button for many of the candidates, with good reason given the current atmosphere in our country. They were all opposed to any form of amnesty at all for any current undocumented alien (often referred to illegal immigrant). They were all opposed to undocumented aliens receiving any entitlements or health care. Several were in favor of very strong measures to secure the southern border to include, opening military bases, building a wall, an increased military presence, some form of electronic citizenship verification, etc. Others hinted at rescinding one or more constitutional amendments concerning states rights and how our citizenship is determined in order to remove the incentive for people to come here.
Wow. The very idea of repealing the 14th amendment shook me to my roots. Then I wanted to know more. It was presented to me by people who were just as unhinged on the left about immigration as those on the right. So I did some digging. It turns out that the 14th amendment is about a lot more than just citizenship (and so-called “anchor babies”). It’s also the due process clause … that is, the amendment which holds the government liable for it’s behavior towards it’s citizens. Now, why on earth would a group of people who are so concerned about limiting the power of government want to strip the due process amendment from the Constitution?
I have no idea. But I think it’s the scariest thing to come out of the Tea Party … bar none.
There is no question that immigration issues are weighing on the minds of politicians and voters this year. And there is no question that there is good reason for this. We have a problem with people coming to our country without permission and staying for years under the radar. This creates enormous problems with our infrastructure (e.g. schools, healthcare, roads, local government, utilities, etc.). I’m not even going to suggest that the problem is anything but Gordian. However, solutions that include returning to their home country before a visa will be granted are untenable on their face. Such solutions make excellent sound bytes, but I have to wonder how they will be implemented and enforced in an era of tight budget restrictions and a smaller government?
National Defense/Terrorism
As one would anticipate all of the candidates made strong statements concerning our national defense. They are committed to finishing the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war with strength. They are committed to our troops and to our veterans. The candidates all made statements that veteran care must improve once our soldiers return home and are no longer serving. At least one or two remain firmly committed to Israel as our ally in the Middle East.
I am so conflicted about the unnecessary wars we fought and are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq that I do not feel I can be nearly as objective as I would like to be on this subject. Unfortunately, our heads of Defense and Chiefs of Staff learned absolutely nothing from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the 70’s and 80’s and 90’s. There was a rich source of experience from which they could have drawn much, but instead we are learning the same lessons … over and over and over again to our detriment. And to the detriment of our men and women in arms. I said as much at the time, but no one listens to a suburban housewife.
When President Bush began rattling the drums about Iraq, I said, “Mark my words, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” I said it here and I said in comments on several other blogs, namely discussions at Jesus Creed, only to get shot down and ignored. I was told I was a traitor for not believing the president. I was told that the ends justify the means and we should employ any means possible to take out that evil Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein, who spent the first third of his presidency enjoying our friendship and camaraderie. BECAUSE WE INSTALLED HIM AS PRESIDENT OF IRAQ. You see, if you do not study the history of a region, you do not know these details. But I have friends who lived it. Who lived through the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79. Who lived in Iraq under Hussein. So … yes, Hussein is gone. What dictator now reigns in his place? We have accomplished exactly nothing, it was based upon lies, Al Qaeda has gained a new recruiting ground, and a cost of ~70,000 Iraqi lives and ~4,750 American/UK lives lost and $900 Billion spent (through Sept. 2010) and their quality of life is at a shocking low.
I don’t know what else to say … spending more and more money on defense is not the answer to our national security problems. Shooting more and more “insurgents” (human beings with just as much “right to life” as you and I) in the Middle East is not going to make us any safer here in our beds. In fact, in a stunning case of counter-intuition, it tends to make us less safe when we play shoot ’em up with people who are willing to die for their cause (by strapping bombs to their chests and walking into a mall). It feels good to be aggressive and war-like. But the response you get from that behavior is not less war, but more. And in an age when war is fought by guerillas and terrorists, I’d like to suggest that perhaps we should be looking for a less war response. I’d like to suggest that saber rattling and gun-toting should be our response of last resort, not first. Trying to lock everyone up, means that we lock ourselves up too and I do not want to live like caged bird. My freedom is not worth much under those circumstances.
In the end, I found while I found myself intrigued by the premises of these Tea Party candidates what I eventually decided was that they were really more emotional and more conservative versions of Republican candidates. It was the same stuff with only a slightly different spin on it. And as I said before, yes they are angry and so are a lot of their supporters. A lot of what they say sounds really good and it’s really angry and really emotional. But the reality they are probably going to accomplish very little if any of the goals they have laid out. The primary reason for this is … their anger. Anger is a great emotion. It generates a lot of energy. But the problem is it doesn’t solve problems. And right now we’ve got an enormous number of problems to solve. These people are trying to get elected on their ability to draw lines in the sand and become immoveable. But that’s not going to solve our problems. In order to do that, they are going to have to negotiate and give up some of those positions they hold dear.
The second reason I don’t see them doing so well once they get to Washington also has to do with anger. Anger is a secondary emotion. It is often provoked by a more primary (or primal) emotion. Usually that primal emotion which provokes anger is fear. We’ve had 9 years of the media (on the right and left) and the government pushing fear at us … telling us to be afraid of everything, of our neighbors, of the cars on the road next to us, of the people on the airplanes we fly with, of the food we eat, of our government … you name it, there is someone telling you to be afraid of it. Finally, a reaction has been provoked and that is anger. But that anger is mis-placed. It’s not Obama’s fault that you’re angry. Or this Congress. Turn off your television. I don’t care what channel news you’re watching, turn it off. Don’t watch any news for at least a week. Don’t listen to any either. If you must get some news somewhere, limit yourself to 3 articles a day from the BBC and get some different perspective on our country. Once you stop listening/watching the news you will be amazed at how the fear and anger disappears. And you will be ready to make a decision about who to vote for based upon your own internal principles again. Not someone yelling at you to be afraid. Or to be angry.
Next. Do your own research. Go to the candidate’s websites. Both of them. Read what they have to say. Be on guard for paradoxes and hyperbole. Think about how will they actually do the things they want to do? How does what they say line up with your internal principles? Will they be able to carry it out with negotiation? Or are they grandstanding? Who is behind their curtain? They all have someone … is their someone an entity you can tolerate?
Finally. If you’ve stuck with me this long, you have my deepest thanks and apologies. This goes on record for the longest and most researched post I’ve ever done here at Calacirian. My thanks for sticking with it and apologies for being so wordy. And my apologies for any lack of objectivity … I tried really hard, but I know I failed at certain junctures. Tomorrow – why I feel that the intersection of Christians and politics has gotten entirely too muddy and ugly.
(Part One of Three)
This all began sometime in the last ten days … or maybe two weeks. I have a dear friend of about 20 years who once lived near me, but now lives in Utah. We have reconnected on Facebook and mostly we enjoy talking about our children and our lives. But there’s this place that we struggle with because we really do love each other and it’s gotten a little bit messy. She has become an avid campaigner for two Tea Party candidates. I spend a lot of time ignoring the places that we disagree on, and enjoying her passion. And she spends a lot of time loving me back. So far it’s all worked out really well. But I’ve always been very curious, because I hold my friend in pretty high regard. She’s smart and funny and educated. What is it that has drawn her to these candidates and caused her to be so passionate about them? Indeed, why have so many people been drawn to these candidates? I know popular wisdom holds that many Tea Partiers are ignorant and stupid; easily lead. But for the most part that has not been my individual experience with people who are likely to vote for their candidates in a little over a week. So, I decided to do away with all the yelling and name-calling and do a little research project of my own.
I’d been thinking about this research project for a while. Then several events came together in my life which prompted me to get off the block and do it. First, my aforementioned friend posted a bunch of stuff about her candidates and I got more curious. Then someone else posted a link to a Rachel Maddow video about why the Tea Party candidates are doing so well this year. Her analysis was intriguing, but I don’t necessarily agree with Rachel and wanted to see for myself. Finally, the DSCC (Democratic Senate Campaign Committee) posted an ad on my Facebook page and asked me to tell them which Tea Party candidate I think is the most extreme. So I went to that page and found a great list of Tea Party candidates which I had never had in one place before. (P.S. I have not answered the DSCC question because I think it’s ridiculous and a bunch of hype). It would be great if the Democrats would get together and tell us what they stand FOR, because it is good and right. They are not slightly liberal Republicans, but Democrats and that is a good thing. But I digress 😉
So I used that list as a starting point to find Tea Party candidates for Senate office (mostly) and a couple who are running for House of Representatives. I went to their campaign websites and read their biographies and then their issues page(s). What I found there was sometimes surprising and sometimes not. I ended up looking at 10 candidates overall. There were a couple that I did some additional research into for no reason other than they were intriguing to me, or the race they were running was intriguing. I did not look at any of their opponents. I suppose I could have, but I didn’t. The reason is this … there are those within the Tea Party who claim that it is something new and different; that these candidates are going to change the way things are done for the better. So I wanted to see if the candidates running under their banner have what it takes to live up to that.
I looked at 8 candidates for US Senate and 3 candidates for US House of Representatives. They were as follows (listed alphabetically by last name):
US Senate Candidates
Sharron Angle – Nevada Ken Buck – Colorado Ron Johnson – Wisconsin Mike Lee – Utah Joe Miller – Alaska Christine O’Donnell – Delaware Rand Paul – Kentucky Marco Rubio – Florida
US House of Representatives
Keith Fimian – Virginia 11th District Tim Griffin – Arkansas 2nd District Morgan Philpot – Utah 2nd District
What I found was that overall, Tea Party candidates will more than likely change very little if they are elected to office this fall. Yes, they are dissatisfied. Yes, they are angry. Yes, they have a vituperative critique of the way the Federal Government (and especially Congress) is run. But their critique is mostly about which toys are being played with, not the game overall. With one exception, the candidates I looked at do not want to actually change the game, they just want to change the playing pieces. While they are long on flash, they seem to be short on pan, making their particular flash in the pan even less impressive than most. But I also found that they had a lot more in common than I anticipated. So please allow me to tell what I found out about the common concerns and commonalities of this group of Tea Party candidates.
The first thing I began to notice when I looked them up was the inordinate number of sponsored links that arose linking this group of candidates with the Club For Growth. I searched for websites by putting their names into Google. Approximately 7 or 8 times out of 11, the top sponsored link was one connecting the candidate to the Club For Growth. This group was started in 1999 and it ostensibly assists conservative candidates with their campaigns. As I discovered, 8 of the 11 candidates are CFG endorsed candidates. Apparently, one of the requirements for endorsement is pledging favor for privatization of Social Security accounts (more on that in part 2).
The second thing I noticed was that an inordinate number of them, approximately 7 or 8 are lawyers by education and profession. The exceptions were both women, Keith Fimian (an accountant) and Rand Paul (an opthamologist). None of the candidates were strangers to the electoral system and almost all had either won some form of political office before or run other campaigns before. They are not newcomers to our political process by any stretch of the imagination. And many have spent significant portions of their working lives in and around government offices; usually attorney generals offices of one sort or another.
Broadly speaking, the candidates had something to say about the following issues (listed in alphabetical order, because the candidates all listed them in different order):
Economy & Taxation Of course, these are all conservative candidates so they believe in a very conservative paradigm for financial management. They all believe and pledged (to greater or lesser extents) to reduce the tax burden on all of us in order to get the economy working again. Several discussed the fault incumbent upon the current Congress for increasing the debt load; others discussed the current financial crisis as a problem that has been years in the making and were happy to spread the responsibility around to both the Bush and Obama administrations.
Energy Issues This was the issue upon which there was probably the least consensus. Overall, most of the candidates stated that our reliance upon foreign oil resources was problematic for our economy and for industrial objectives. All of them were supportive of reducing our reliance upon foreign oil resources, but after that the consensus broke down. There were many different ideas about how the country should go about doing this, but all focused on a common thread that the free market would be the best place to determine the outcome.
Family Values All of the candidates made sure to define marriage on their issues page as a union between a man and a woman. Some took it no further than this. Others made certain that they clearly spelled out their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Federal Government (size and function)/Entitlements Every one of the candidates expressed their dismay at the large (bloated) size of the Federal Government. They all (to a greater or lesser degree) supported and/or would initiate legislation to decrease the size of the Federal Government … on anything not related to defense or national security. Or education. Or law enforcement/prisons. The candidates also were in general agreement that entitlement spending must be decreased with the goal of eventually removing it from the budget (privatizing Social Security) and getting rid of the other entitlement programs all together.
Health Care Reform Most, if not all, are staunchly opposed to the healthcare reforms passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Obama (referred to disparagingly as Obamacare). They express the most concern about the provision which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance (and if they cannot afford it, it will be provided for them). There is also concern expressed about the so-called abortion clause; that is the candidates are firmly opposed to the notion that any taxpayer dollars might be used in support of abortion.
Immigration Issues Immigration issues tended to be a hot button for many of the candidates, with good reason given the current atmosphere in our country. They were all opposed to any form of amnesty at all for any current undocumented alien (often referred to illegal immigrant). They were all opposed to undocumented aliens receiving any entitlements or health care. Several were in favor of very strong measures to secure the southern border to include, opening military bases, building a wall, an increased military presence, some form of electronic citizenship verification, etc. Others hinted at rescinding one or more constitutional amendments concerning states rights and how our citizenship is determined in order to remove the incentive for people to come here.
National Defense/Terrorism As one would anticipate all of the candidates made strong statements concerning our national defense. They are committed to finishing the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war with strength. They are committed to our troops and to our veterans. The candidates all made statements that veteran care must improve once our soldiers return home and are no longer serving. At least one or two remain firmly committed to Israel as our ally in the Middle East.
I have painted with an overly broad brush here to give you a quick read on the candidates who’s websites I visited. I’d really suggest that you go visit their websites to get a better notion of who they are yourselves. I have to admit that I found some of their solutions and ideas fairly intriguing and worth investigating. Tomorrow, I’ll explain why I think that if elected (and some of them will indeed be elected) they really won’t change much.
