The Tea Party, which has become ubiquitous these days, has been driving the political conversation for some time. A large number of these Tea Party regulars are also religious conservatives. One direction in which they seem to be taking the country is in treating the Constitution as a document delivered straight frrom the Godhead Himself. This approach to the Bible has been part and parcel of the religious conservative's approach to religion, but there can be some real dangers in approaching the Constitution in the same fashion.
We have already discussed a more realistic approach to understanding the Bible in earlier blogs and will likely pursue that discussion further in a later blog. At this time I want to consider some of the ways in which this raising the Constitution to the level of scripture is actually a misunderstanding of the framers intent and can box us into being unable to achieve important ends and appropriate progress for our country. Too many Tea Party regulars have chosen to deify the framers of the Constitution, but they are not meant to be deified and the Constitution is not a religious documnent.
First lets look at some of the ways in which the Bible and the Constitution may in fact be similar. In the first instance the Bible serves as the book by which Christians determine their beliefs and govern their behavior. The Constitution is the basis for all the laws of the land and thus, it is the document by which we govern ourselves. The Bible is interpreted literally, or more flexibly by some, or in the case of Catholicism, the Pope and heirarchy become the final arbiters of what the Bible means. The Constitution is also interpreted in a strict or loose fashion by scholars having various beliefs. The Supreme Court was established as the official determiner of the meaning of the Constitution. In that sense it is something like the Pope interpreting scripture. So there are some similarities.
Whatever one's religious beliefs, however, treating the Constitution as if it is some sacred document is not a good idea. First of all, because it isn't. Nor is the Supreme Court a religious body that has some infallible insight into the truth of the Constitution. Nor in fact does the Constitution always get it right on every issue. There are clear instances of this reality without even resorting to the decision to make every African Slave the equivalent of 3/5 of a person. In terms of the Supreme Court there are many decisions that are not only considered erroneous, but have been reversed by later courts. Bottom line, believing in the Constitution as one might believe in the Bible is a formula for serious problems. Even the founding fathers were conscious of their limitations and insisted on a mechanism for amending their own document.
Three issues that exemplify the problem might include the Health Care Reform Bill, the second amendment, and campaign finance reform. If the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional but we need an individual mandate to provide health care to our citizenry then we need to amend or enlarge are understanding of the Constitution to make that happen. If the second amendment permits all citizens to carry guns, and that means young people are carrying and using guns all over the streets of Detroit, Philadelphia, etc, then we need to find a way to make our country safe for all of our people. If money is a form of free speech and this means that the rich and powerful can set policy and determine who will govern and how they will govern, then we are compelled to redress the wrong that makes those of us with less power and wealth have less say in our government.
The point is that the wording of the Constitution is not meant to limit what we can do as a free people but to facilitate our efforts. It is our obligation to make the Constitution work for our country and it's citizens. It is not the words of the Constitution that should determine our actions, but rather the legitimate needs of our people. After all, it is the preamble of the Constitution that tells us that we have established this Constitution for the express purpose of forming a more perfect union. It can be debated whether the issues discussed above merit changing the Constitution or our approach to its interpretation. What cannot be debated is that the Constitution is not meant to prevent the enactment of laws to advance our nation. It is not meant to stand in the way of our building that more perfect union, but rather it is meant to make it possible for us to do so.
A rigid or strict construction of the Constitution seems to miss the point of what the framers were attempting to do. Just as many religious conservatives seem to have forgotten that the Bible was written by human authors, they also tend to forget how fallible and limited were our founding fathers. The founding fathers were conscious of their own limitations and were attempting to produce a document that would allow its people to operate as appropriate in the years ahead, not to fit it with a straitjacket. Clearly the Constitution is embedded in the culture in which it was generated and the conditions prevalent at the time. So many present day circumstances were unheard of and could not have been envisioned when the Constitution was written. Yet if anyuthing is clear, it is the expectation that this document will provide the framework for the country to be successful and for its people to prosper. To allow a strict constructionist view to prevent our people from taking our country in directions deemed proper would be to demonstrate a failure to understand the purpose of our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was unlear in his own mind whether the Louisiana Purchase might be unconstituional, but he went ahead with it anyway because what was clear was that it was the right thing to do for the health and benefit of the nation he led. That is a good example or principle for us to follow.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Waiting For The Rapture
I must confess that I know almost nothing about the rapture. Oh, I have heard some of my evangelical friends talking about it quietly in small groups. I could also be forced to admit that I actually read one of those books about the rapture by Tim La Haye, by accident. I started it not knowing what it was and got far enough into it that I felt I should finish it. My point, howvver, is that the rapture has not been part of my Christian tradition or culture.
I of course know about the second coming. As small children we talked about how the end of the world could come at any moment or not for thousands of years. But the rapture was not a concept I was familirar with. How did we Catholics miss this? Clearly the idea comes from the biblical book of Revelation. It's a book of the bible that we spent little time exploring even in my seminary years. I have actually never read it completely through. I am not proud of this fact, but I am somewhat proud of the fact that Catholics usually call this book the Apocalypse rather than Revelation. It is one of the few scriptural differences between Catholics and Protestants where I believe Catholics may have the better perspective. More about this later.
Nonetheless, it is quite true that many Protestants especially evangelicals have spent an extraordinary amount of time working to decipher the book of Revelation, hoping to identify and relate the meaning of each word and line to contemporary events. If you are reading this blog it likely means that the rapture did not occur and the world did not end on May 21st even though we were given it on good authority that this was to be the case. Interestingly this particular authority, Harold Camping of the Family Radio Network, made this same pronouncement back in 1994 as well and was wrong. His Math was better this time and unassailable. It is easy to ridicule these purveyors of Biblical prophecy and many have done just that. Ridicule, of course plays into the hands of the righteous for they know they will be vindicated when proven right just as those who laughed at Noah were left to be washed away by the flood while Noah's Ark sailed away. Unfortunately for the righteous this time they were not proven right. Many have prophesied the end of the world over the years and we are still waiting.
What is going on? It is actually quite interesting. We are talking about those who favor a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the Bible. The world was created in 6 days for example, and the world is less than 10,000 years old. What bothers me is the selective use of fundamentalism and the focus on particular issues of their choosing. Make no mistake, this fundamentalism does not apply to everything in the Bible. Prophesying the end of the world is a good example. Why wouldn't it be fundamental to focus on the five foolish and five wise virgins of Matthew 25, who were not ready when the wedding feast was about to begin? We are told to be watchful for you know not the day or the hour. It is not given to you to know the day or the hour, but be ready because at a time that you know not the master will come. Why are these passages not taken in a fundamental sense so that we avoid trying to determine some secret revelation in the Bible that presumably we are not supposed to know? Is it not the height of arrogance to presume to be able to determine the exact time of the end of the world when Jesus tells us that it is unknowable? Once again we have this gnostic notion of possessing a knowledge that eludes the rest of men. To make it worse the notion that others must embrace this pseudo knowledge or face condemnation is most unfortunate.
We ahould have learned from the early Christians not to continue to pursue this line of inquiry. We see that in First Thessalonians the early Christians around 50 AD believed the end of the world could come any day. In fact they gathered every Sunday morning, remembering the ressurection, waiting for Jesus to return. Years went by and nothing happened. Many of them were not working or providing for their families as they waited. They were certain that it would happen before the last of the Apostles died. Finally Paul had to tell them to stop waiting for Christ's return and go back to work. Jesus would return on his own terms and in his own good time. In the meantime their lives had to go on and they were obligated to address the ordinary needs of daily living. We would do well to heed the admonitions of Paul.
Back to the Apocaplypse. The Book of Revelation is an exampLe of what is known as Apocalyptic literature. There is a lot of it in the bible, including in the Old Testament, Daniel for example. Jesus' descriptions of the end of the world are also couched in traditional appocalyptic literature. In the case of Revelation we are told that these are the dreams or visions of a very old apostle, John, who is ready to die and meet his Lord once again. They are not meant to tell us when the end of the world will come. They are meant to reassure and encourage us in time of trouble. The final victory will be won. The power of God will prevail and no matter the challenges we face we will overcome them through the power of God who will not desert his people. The beautiful signs and symbols of the heavenly Jerusalem indicate that the triumph will indeed be a glorious one. Just as the Old Testament prophets were not prophets in the sense of fortune tellers, but were calling people back to faith and righteousness, there is no secret gnosis or knowledge that the clever person who studies scripture will be able to discern. We must be careful about trying to understand the unknowable. Paul tells us that now we see through a glass darkly but then we will see face to face. I for one will be happy to wait for God to reveal to us what eye has not seen nor ear heard of the wonders that God has prepared for us.
I of course know about the second coming. As small children we talked about how the end of the world could come at any moment or not for thousands of years. But the rapture was not a concept I was familirar with. How did we Catholics miss this? Clearly the idea comes from the biblical book of Revelation. It's a book of the bible that we spent little time exploring even in my seminary years. I have actually never read it completely through. I am not proud of this fact, but I am somewhat proud of the fact that Catholics usually call this book the Apocalypse rather than Revelation. It is one of the few scriptural differences between Catholics and Protestants where I believe Catholics may have the better perspective. More about this later.
Nonetheless, it is quite true that many Protestants especially evangelicals have spent an extraordinary amount of time working to decipher the book of Revelation, hoping to identify and relate the meaning of each word and line to contemporary events. If you are reading this blog it likely means that the rapture did not occur and the world did not end on May 21st even though we were given it on good authority that this was to be the case. Interestingly this particular authority, Harold Camping of the Family Radio Network, made this same pronouncement back in 1994 as well and was wrong. His Math was better this time and unassailable. It is easy to ridicule these purveyors of Biblical prophecy and many have done just that. Ridicule, of course plays into the hands of the righteous for they know they will be vindicated when proven right just as those who laughed at Noah were left to be washed away by the flood while Noah's Ark sailed away. Unfortunately for the righteous this time they were not proven right. Many have prophesied the end of the world over the years and we are still waiting.
What is going on? It is actually quite interesting. We are talking about those who favor a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the Bible. The world was created in 6 days for example, and the world is less than 10,000 years old. What bothers me is the selective use of fundamentalism and the focus on particular issues of their choosing. Make no mistake, this fundamentalism does not apply to everything in the Bible. Prophesying the end of the world is a good example. Why wouldn't it be fundamental to focus on the five foolish and five wise virgins of Matthew 25, who were not ready when the wedding feast was about to begin? We are told to be watchful for you know not the day or the hour. It is not given to you to know the day or the hour, but be ready because at a time that you know not the master will come. Why are these passages not taken in a fundamental sense so that we avoid trying to determine some secret revelation in the Bible that presumably we are not supposed to know? Is it not the height of arrogance to presume to be able to determine the exact time of the end of the world when Jesus tells us that it is unknowable? Once again we have this gnostic notion of possessing a knowledge that eludes the rest of men. To make it worse the notion that others must embrace this pseudo knowledge or face condemnation is most unfortunate.
We ahould have learned from the early Christians not to continue to pursue this line of inquiry. We see that in First Thessalonians the early Christians around 50 AD believed the end of the world could come any day. In fact they gathered every Sunday morning, remembering the ressurection, waiting for Jesus to return. Years went by and nothing happened. Many of them were not working or providing for their families as they waited. They were certain that it would happen before the last of the Apostles died. Finally Paul had to tell them to stop waiting for Christ's return and go back to work. Jesus would return on his own terms and in his own good time. In the meantime their lives had to go on and they were obligated to address the ordinary needs of daily living. We would do well to heed the admonitions of Paul.
Back to the Apocaplypse. The Book of Revelation is an exampLe of what is known as Apocalyptic literature. There is a lot of it in the bible, including in the Old Testament, Daniel for example. Jesus' descriptions of the end of the world are also couched in traditional appocalyptic literature. In the case of Revelation we are told that these are the dreams or visions of a very old apostle, John, who is ready to die and meet his Lord once again. They are not meant to tell us when the end of the world will come. They are meant to reassure and encourage us in time of trouble. The final victory will be won. The power of God will prevail and no matter the challenges we face we will overcome them through the power of God who will not desert his people. The beautiful signs and symbols of the heavenly Jerusalem indicate that the triumph will indeed be a glorious one. Just as the Old Testament prophets were not prophets in the sense of fortune tellers, but were calling people back to faith and righteousness, there is no secret gnosis or knowledge that the clever person who studies scripture will be able to discern. We must be careful about trying to understand the unknowable. Paul tells us that now we see through a glass darkly but then we will see face to face. I for one will be happy to wait for God to reveal to us what eye has not seen nor ear heard of the wonders that God has prepared for us.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Same Sex Marriage
The State of Maryland was very close to passing a same sex marriage law. The State Senate had passed it, and the House of Delegates was evenly divided. Ultimately the bill failed without a vote ever being taken. The powers that were arrayed against it emerged victorious. Many of these powers were of course the Christian Churches which rallied against the bill. Not all Christian voices were opposed mind you, but there were sufficient numbers to make the difference. Interestingly, some legislative members who were initially sponsors of the bill wound up voting against it, illustrating the power of the opposition. It is also true that passage would likely have triggered a referendum where the opposition forces may well have prvailed as well.
My question is, are we a better country today, now that this bill has failed? Is Maryland a better state? Have we averted some terrible calamity by defeating this bill? Has the institution of Marriage some how been saved or strengthened by this bill going down to defeat?
In my own Catholic Church we heard from the pulpit the week before the vote that if this bill passed "Marriage as we know it would be destroyed". This statement is basically ludicrous on its face. I wonder how my marriage or your marriage is diminished by this bill. Are we somehow less married? Do two guys or two girls exchanging rings harm the rest of us in any tangible way? I am again forced to wonder why it is acceptable for the forces opposed to this bill to use any means or any rhetoric they choose to attack this bill with no regard for the actual facts of the issue, no concern for fairness, and no attempt to even put forward realistic arguments.
Generally the argument is couched in religious terms. The Bible says this is wrong and we have no choice but to oppose this law. I could argue the point on religious and scriptural grounds. Clearly many Christian groups have found this change acceptable. The Bible is amenable to varying interpretations, and anyone who claims to have the only acceptable interpretation is perhaps a tad arrogant. Has God provided them with some special knowledge or 'gnosis' that the rest of us don't have? Such argumentation however, is futile because those in opposition believe they have the truth and are not interested in listening to other points of view.
I would say to those sincerely opposed, just as the law said, go ahead and continue to follow your religious convictions. Certainly in this country you are entitled to them. Live your lives as you choose, and refuse to accept the rights of gays to marry. What you do not have a right to do, though, is to compel everyone else to live according to your rules and convictions. Nobody is hurting you or forcing you to give up your religious convictions. No Church is being asked to perform gay marriages or recognize them in any way. Just look at states that have legalized such marriages and nothing has really changed. Couples get married and divorced as before. Marriage continues to be assailed in many ways such as by divorce, couples living together etc., but gay marriage is not among these culprits. If anything gay marriage serves to enhance the value and importance of the institution. In any case it is a secular event and not a religious one, except where certain religious groups may choose to bless such a union, which is also their right.
Isn't it time to discard the animosity that too often exists toward others in today's America? No matter the issue, others are quick to condemn. If you are not like them you must be punished, eliminated, or defeated. Whether the issue is gay marriage, immigration, detainees at Guantanamo, Muslims in general, public employee workers and unions, etc. we are quick to condemn. True, 9/11 created legitimate fear among the populace, but this is not the America I know. The determination to bash everyone who is different is beneath us as Americans and doesn't make us safer or stronger. Our strength comes from all Americans coooperating together without the current divisiveness. All of us and all of our talents are needed regardless of race, creed, national origin, if we are to continue to make progress as a nation.
So what does the future hold for gay marriage and many other controversial issues. The conventional wisdom seems to say that the changes are inevitable. Attitudes are changing and it is only a matter of time until laws change as well. I am not as sure of this positive trajectory. It is true that young people have very different attitudes and as us older folks die off change is bound to happen. I would agree that changes in behavior have already occurred and are likely to continue to evolve. It also seems clear that on many of these social issues a majority of folks have already developed positions that would be considered progessive.
However, the problem is due to the fact that everyone does not vote. If everyone voted the Congress would look different today. The power of an entrenched minority is very great. Their ability to frame issues to favor their position has been demonstrated over and over again. The opposition is fired up and the rhetoric of hate and division too often triumphs over reasoned common sense and thoughtful efforts to move the debate forward.
Frankly I think our best hope is for Christians to become more Christian. Especially at this time of Lent if we could remind ourselves that Jesus doesn't choose which of us he likes based on how closely we conform to his way of thinking. The incredible truth is that Jesus loves every one of us, regardless of our religion, our behavior, our race, and yes even our sexual orientation. After all, he made all of us. And somewhere in that Bible I believe it says something about loving your enemies, and loving your neighbor as yourself.
My question is, are we a better country today, now that this bill has failed? Is Maryland a better state? Have we averted some terrible calamity by defeating this bill? Has the institution of Marriage some how been saved or strengthened by this bill going down to defeat?
In my own Catholic Church we heard from the pulpit the week before the vote that if this bill passed "Marriage as we know it would be destroyed". This statement is basically ludicrous on its face. I wonder how my marriage or your marriage is diminished by this bill. Are we somehow less married? Do two guys or two girls exchanging rings harm the rest of us in any tangible way? I am again forced to wonder why it is acceptable for the forces opposed to this bill to use any means or any rhetoric they choose to attack this bill with no regard for the actual facts of the issue, no concern for fairness, and no attempt to even put forward realistic arguments.
Generally the argument is couched in religious terms. The Bible says this is wrong and we have no choice but to oppose this law. I could argue the point on religious and scriptural grounds. Clearly many Christian groups have found this change acceptable. The Bible is amenable to varying interpretations, and anyone who claims to have the only acceptable interpretation is perhaps a tad arrogant. Has God provided them with some special knowledge or 'gnosis' that the rest of us don't have? Such argumentation however, is futile because those in opposition believe they have the truth and are not interested in listening to other points of view.
I would say to those sincerely opposed, just as the law said, go ahead and continue to follow your religious convictions. Certainly in this country you are entitled to them. Live your lives as you choose, and refuse to accept the rights of gays to marry. What you do not have a right to do, though, is to compel everyone else to live according to your rules and convictions. Nobody is hurting you or forcing you to give up your religious convictions. No Church is being asked to perform gay marriages or recognize them in any way. Just look at states that have legalized such marriages and nothing has really changed. Couples get married and divorced as before. Marriage continues to be assailed in many ways such as by divorce, couples living together etc., but gay marriage is not among these culprits. If anything gay marriage serves to enhance the value and importance of the institution. In any case it is a secular event and not a religious one, except where certain religious groups may choose to bless such a union, which is also their right.
Isn't it time to discard the animosity that too often exists toward others in today's America? No matter the issue, others are quick to condemn. If you are not like them you must be punished, eliminated, or defeated. Whether the issue is gay marriage, immigration, detainees at Guantanamo, Muslims in general, public employee workers and unions, etc. we are quick to condemn. True, 9/11 created legitimate fear among the populace, but this is not the America I know. The determination to bash everyone who is different is beneath us as Americans and doesn't make us safer or stronger. Our strength comes from all Americans coooperating together without the current divisiveness. All of us and all of our talents are needed regardless of race, creed, national origin, if we are to continue to make progress as a nation.
So what does the future hold for gay marriage and many other controversial issues. The conventional wisdom seems to say that the changes are inevitable. Attitudes are changing and it is only a matter of time until laws change as well. I am not as sure of this positive trajectory. It is true that young people have very different attitudes and as us older folks die off change is bound to happen. I would agree that changes in behavior have already occurred and are likely to continue to evolve. It also seems clear that on many of these social issues a majority of folks have already developed positions that would be considered progessive.
However, the problem is due to the fact that everyone does not vote. If everyone voted the Congress would look different today. The power of an entrenched minority is very great. Their ability to frame issues to favor their position has been demonstrated over and over again. The opposition is fired up and the rhetoric of hate and division too often triumphs over reasoned common sense and thoughtful efforts to move the debate forward.
Frankly I think our best hope is for Christians to become more Christian. Especially at this time of Lent if we could remind ourselves that Jesus doesn't choose which of us he likes based on how closely we conform to his way of thinking. The incredible truth is that Jesus loves every one of us, regardless of our religion, our behavior, our race, and yes even our sexual orientation. After all, he made all of us. And somewhere in that Bible I believe it says something about loving your enemies, and loving your neighbor as yourself.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Government We Love To Hate
The tea party contingent has arrived in Washington operating under some erroneous concepts. Their philosophical underpinnings seem to be wrapped up in a simpler time when government may have been legitimately not needed or wanted.
Society, however has changed dramatically from the days of the wild west or even the family farm. A farmer with two strong sons may well not have needed government. He took his corn and potatoes to market and wanted to be left alone. His life and that of his family were in many ways self sufficient. How many families do you know who live that kind of life today? The whole issue of complex farm subsidies suggests that we live in a different world today.
Today's world is in fact much more complex. We need governemnt to do many things we can't do for ourselves. An argument focusing on the role of government during the early days of our constitution considered the issue of the banking system. The issue of whether or not to have a national bank of course takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Later we had the example of Republican Dwight Eisenhower developing the interstate highway system. In each case eventually it became clear that these kinds of changes, improvements, developments were needed "to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility," etc. Important decisions over the course of the history of this country were ultimately made on the practical basis of what was needed to move the interests of the people and the country forward, not rigidly on some arcane interpretation of the meaning of states rights. In general, politicians tend to favor states rights and limited governemtnt until and unless an issue comes along that is in their best interests or that demands a looser interpretation of strict constructionism in order for the country to make meaningful progress.
Why are we returning to fight these same battles today? I believe it is because of an attachment to ideology that ignores the reality of the day. Important issues need to be discussed and appropriate solutions need to be found, but it is not possible when one side uses states rights as a mantra to insist that the federal government stay out of practically every issue. The government needs to be involved when necessary and should stay out of matters if it is not needed. Yet it is also true that in this increasingly complex world fewer and fewer people can do everything for themeselves. We live in an interdependent society, and the rugged individualism of the frontier, while a nice idea, neeeds to be tempered with a healthy dose of reality which appears to be missing in a lot of the new faces in Washingtin.
Health care is an important example. The new mantra is that the individual mandate is unconstitutional even though it was initially a Republican idea. Clearly the federal government impacts the lives of individuals in many ways and has throughout our history. The federal government mandates that you provide information to census workers, that you have a social security card, that you pay into the social security system, that you pay federal income tax, that you sign up for medicare at age 65. The list goes on and on. We elect representatives to run our government and make laws and we vote them out of office if we disagree with their actions. Yet most Americans believe much of the social contract that has been established including social security and medicare conform to our beliefs as a people and are not interested in doing away with programs that have becom a part of the American system.
In a typical third world conutry like the Philippines, no one receives care without money. Recently a family member experienced the need for life saving surgery and until they could come up with more than a million pesos (around $600,000 dollars) surgery was withheld. Certainly the poor will not be among those receiving such life saving surgery. We are developing a disturbing notion among some in this country that if I have good health insurance or the ability to pay, the situation confronting others is of no concern to me. Is that the American way? I don't even think it was the frontier way. We are often told how the entire community would come together to help the neighbor rebuild his house if it had been destroyed by fire. The problem is our duty to our neighbor needs to be handled differently today because we no longer live in such self sustaining communities. We need hospitals, roads, libraries. schools, and a myriad of other services. No man is an island. The unfiltered notion that government has no role in any of these areas represents fuzzy or flawed thinking.
I can understand that if you are 22 years old and healthy you may not feel you should be forced to buy health insurance. The problem is you will not always be 22 and healthy. Eveyone is required to pay into social security because otherwwise there would be no fund for older people to draw on.
Do we not need a social compact that says we believe in the American dream and we will not put obstacles in the way of all our fellow citizens reaching that goal. Just because I have my needs met does that mean we are finished? Again. health care is a good example. No one can afford to pay today's enormous health care costs. That's what insurance is all about. We all need it. We need a system that provides everyone with coverage, and where necessary provides subsidies for those who cannot afford it. When everyone participates the cost for each of us is reduced. Why sohould you care? Do you want poor people or children sick or dying at the entrances of our hospitals? Do you want the uninsured to continue to be subsidized by taxpayuer dollars at emergency rooms; and is that the most efficient use of our health care dollars? Do you want, in a country with the best available health care resources and services, that same health care system closed to large numbers of our citizenry? Will that make this a better country and will it make you a more secure individual or family?
Going back to my example of the Philippines, I recall my visit there with my wife shortly after we were married in the early 70's. The poor living conditions and poverty were striking but perhaps not totally unexpected. What really hit me was that all of the well to do families lived in compounds with gatehouses and guards. I found that disturbing that communities found it necessary to live this way. We are seeing a good deal of this now in our own country. Instead of progressing is it our desire to become more like the Philippines, Haiti, or other such countries? Are we committed to expanding the gap between rich and poor in our country, and squeezing the middle class even further? Many of our policies and proposed policies are moving us in that direction. The House of Representatives read the constitution to begin its new session. Is that the message of the constitution - every man for himself - government need not concern itself with those in need? I hope not.
Society, however has changed dramatically from the days of the wild west or even the family farm. A farmer with two strong sons may well not have needed government. He took his corn and potatoes to market and wanted to be left alone. His life and that of his family were in many ways self sufficient. How many families do you know who live that kind of life today? The whole issue of complex farm subsidies suggests that we live in a different world today.
Today's world is in fact much more complex. We need governemnt to do many things we can't do for ourselves. An argument focusing on the role of government during the early days of our constitution considered the issue of the banking system. The issue of whether or not to have a national bank of course takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Later we had the example of Republican Dwight Eisenhower developing the interstate highway system. In each case eventually it became clear that these kinds of changes, improvements, developments were needed "to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility," etc. Important decisions over the course of the history of this country were ultimately made on the practical basis of what was needed to move the interests of the people and the country forward, not rigidly on some arcane interpretation of the meaning of states rights. In general, politicians tend to favor states rights and limited governemtnt until and unless an issue comes along that is in their best interests or that demands a looser interpretation of strict constructionism in order for the country to make meaningful progress.
Why are we returning to fight these same battles today? I believe it is because of an attachment to ideology that ignores the reality of the day. Important issues need to be discussed and appropriate solutions need to be found, but it is not possible when one side uses states rights as a mantra to insist that the federal government stay out of practically every issue. The government needs to be involved when necessary and should stay out of matters if it is not needed. Yet it is also true that in this increasingly complex world fewer and fewer people can do everything for themeselves. We live in an interdependent society, and the rugged individualism of the frontier, while a nice idea, neeeds to be tempered with a healthy dose of reality which appears to be missing in a lot of the new faces in Washingtin.
Health care is an important example. The new mantra is that the individual mandate is unconstitutional even though it was initially a Republican idea. Clearly the federal government impacts the lives of individuals in many ways and has throughout our history. The federal government mandates that you provide information to census workers, that you have a social security card, that you pay into the social security system, that you pay federal income tax, that you sign up for medicare at age 65. The list goes on and on. We elect representatives to run our government and make laws and we vote them out of office if we disagree with their actions. Yet most Americans believe much of the social contract that has been established including social security and medicare conform to our beliefs as a people and are not interested in doing away with programs that have becom a part of the American system.
In a typical third world conutry like the Philippines, no one receives care without money. Recently a family member experienced the need for life saving surgery and until they could come up with more than a million pesos (around $600,000 dollars) surgery was withheld. Certainly the poor will not be among those receiving such life saving surgery. We are developing a disturbing notion among some in this country that if I have good health insurance or the ability to pay, the situation confronting others is of no concern to me. Is that the American way? I don't even think it was the frontier way. We are often told how the entire community would come together to help the neighbor rebuild his house if it had been destroyed by fire. The problem is our duty to our neighbor needs to be handled differently today because we no longer live in such self sustaining communities. We need hospitals, roads, libraries. schools, and a myriad of other services. No man is an island. The unfiltered notion that government has no role in any of these areas represents fuzzy or flawed thinking.
I can understand that if you are 22 years old and healthy you may not feel you should be forced to buy health insurance. The problem is you will not always be 22 and healthy. Eveyone is required to pay into social security because otherwwise there would be no fund for older people to draw on.
Do we not need a social compact that says we believe in the American dream and we will not put obstacles in the way of all our fellow citizens reaching that goal. Just because I have my needs met does that mean we are finished? Again. health care is a good example. No one can afford to pay today's enormous health care costs. That's what insurance is all about. We all need it. We need a system that provides everyone with coverage, and where necessary provides subsidies for those who cannot afford it. When everyone participates the cost for each of us is reduced. Why sohould you care? Do you want poor people or children sick or dying at the entrances of our hospitals? Do you want the uninsured to continue to be subsidized by taxpayuer dollars at emergency rooms; and is that the most efficient use of our health care dollars? Do you want, in a country with the best available health care resources and services, that same health care system closed to large numbers of our citizenry? Will that make this a better country and will it make you a more secure individual or family?
Going back to my example of the Philippines, I recall my visit there with my wife shortly after we were married in the early 70's. The poor living conditions and poverty were striking but perhaps not totally unexpected. What really hit me was that all of the well to do families lived in compounds with gatehouses and guards. I found that disturbing that communities found it necessary to live this way. We are seeing a good deal of this now in our own country. Instead of progressing is it our desire to become more like the Philippines, Haiti, or other such countries? Are we committed to expanding the gap between rich and poor in our country, and squeezing the middle class even further? Many of our policies and proposed policies are moving us in that direction. The House of Representatives read the constitution to begin its new session. Is that the message of the constitution - every man for himself - government need not concern itself with those in need? I hope not.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
What's Wrong With The Democrats
Hello, Democrats. Guess What! We just had an election. You lost. In a couple of weeks there are going to be significantly more Republicans running around in your Congress. Which part of this reality do you not understand?
The grousing about President Obama making a deal with Republicans is misguided and counter productive. The window for deal making is about to close. Dont forget, you just had two votes to try to enact the Obama tax agenda. They both failed. There is zero possibility that the results would be better after January.
Republicans actually gave up something in this deal. It is the first real bipartisan action in two years. Democrats got many things they have wanted that they cannot possibly get at a later time. Extension of unemployment benefits for thirteen months, small business tax breaks, and a reduction in the payroll tax are critical Democratic priorities. So the temporary extension of tax breaks for the rich may be a bitter pill to swallow, but guess what? That's exactly what compromise is. Each side likes part of it and dislikes other parts of it.
What is the alternative? Let all the tax cuts expire as of January 1? Do we really care about the problems of the middle class or not? Can we possibly want nothing to happen? In the process of dragging out this debate what is being accomplished? The opportunity to resolve other critical legislative issues is slipping away. There is a window for Don't Ask Don't tell, the DREAM Act, the new START treaty, and a few additional items, but the delay and the bickering is making it less likely each day that these items will get passed. Only one reason to continue this opposition seems plausible, and that would be the pursuit of a cynical political strategy.
That kind of thinking puts us right into the category of Republicans. Just say no. Maybe it is good politics. It worked for the Republicans. At least the Republicans don't really believe in government so maybe they actually believed that doing nothing was a positive thing. Democrats believe government is capable of helping others, and can even be a force for contributing to an improving economy. Are we really going to sit on the sidelines for the next two years to watch the economy continue to falter in the hopes of winning back a majority in the house? Shame on you, Democrats. I thought this was a party that really believed in trying to make things better for all the people.
Then there is the question of the budget deficit. It is interesting that everytime a proposal comes up that one doesn't like, the deficit is cited as the problem. No one seems to care about the deficit if they approve of the program. Republicans cry deficit when it comes to unemployment benefits, but see no need to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Moderate to conservative Democrats are so concerened about the deficit when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy but not for tax cuts for the middle class. The fact is the deficit is a real problem, but so is unemployment. This deal will be the last opportunity to try to strengthen the economy. I'm pretty sure we will not be seeing any infrastructure or job training bills in the new congress. It makes little sense to me to implement austere budget restrictions unless the economy itself is in better shape.
We have a deficit reduction panel which has just issued its recommnendations. There is of course difficult work ahead, but clearly the President will address the deficit in this year's State of the Union address. Work will begin in earnest. There will be much horse trading, and again much to like and dislike about the final result. It needs to be done, and Democrats need to be at the table to make the deal as fair as possible. That, however, is the work of next year. Now is the time to pass the tax deal to boost a weak recovery and get millions of Americans back to work. So don't bring up the deficit as an excuse to vote against the deal.
Much good has been accomplished under this administration over the past two years under very difficult circumstances. Much more can still be done in the next two years. If Democrats just want to be vindictive because of how Republicans acted the past two years then you are simply lowering yourselves to their level. The goal of government is to govern. The American people expect that to occur. The President is trying to govern and he deserves your support.
The grousing about President Obama making a deal with Republicans is misguided and counter productive. The window for deal making is about to close. Dont forget, you just had two votes to try to enact the Obama tax agenda. They both failed. There is zero possibility that the results would be better after January.
Republicans actually gave up something in this deal. It is the first real bipartisan action in two years. Democrats got many things they have wanted that they cannot possibly get at a later time. Extension of unemployment benefits for thirteen months, small business tax breaks, and a reduction in the payroll tax are critical Democratic priorities. So the temporary extension of tax breaks for the rich may be a bitter pill to swallow, but guess what? That's exactly what compromise is. Each side likes part of it and dislikes other parts of it.
What is the alternative? Let all the tax cuts expire as of January 1? Do we really care about the problems of the middle class or not? Can we possibly want nothing to happen? In the process of dragging out this debate what is being accomplished? The opportunity to resolve other critical legislative issues is slipping away. There is a window for Don't Ask Don't tell, the DREAM Act, the new START treaty, and a few additional items, but the delay and the bickering is making it less likely each day that these items will get passed. Only one reason to continue this opposition seems plausible, and that would be the pursuit of a cynical political strategy.
That kind of thinking puts us right into the category of Republicans. Just say no. Maybe it is good politics. It worked for the Republicans. At least the Republicans don't really believe in government so maybe they actually believed that doing nothing was a positive thing. Democrats believe government is capable of helping others, and can even be a force for contributing to an improving economy. Are we really going to sit on the sidelines for the next two years to watch the economy continue to falter in the hopes of winning back a majority in the house? Shame on you, Democrats. I thought this was a party that really believed in trying to make things better for all the people.
Then there is the question of the budget deficit. It is interesting that everytime a proposal comes up that one doesn't like, the deficit is cited as the problem. No one seems to care about the deficit if they approve of the program. Republicans cry deficit when it comes to unemployment benefits, but see no need to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Moderate to conservative Democrats are so concerened about the deficit when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy but not for tax cuts for the middle class. The fact is the deficit is a real problem, but so is unemployment. This deal will be the last opportunity to try to strengthen the economy. I'm pretty sure we will not be seeing any infrastructure or job training bills in the new congress. It makes little sense to me to implement austere budget restrictions unless the economy itself is in better shape.
We have a deficit reduction panel which has just issued its recommnendations. There is of course difficult work ahead, but clearly the President will address the deficit in this year's State of the Union address. Work will begin in earnest. There will be much horse trading, and again much to like and dislike about the final result. It needs to be done, and Democrats need to be at the table to make the deal as fair as possible. That, however, is the work of next year. Now is the time to pass the tax deal to boost a weak recovery and get millions of Americans back to work. So don't bring up the deficit as an excuse to vote against the deal.
Much good has been accomplished under this administration over the past two years under very difficult circumstances. Much more can still be done in the next two years. If Democrats just want to be vindictive because of how Republicans acted the past two years then you are simply lowering yourselves to their level. The goal of government is to govern. The American people expect that to occur. The President is trying to govern and he deserves your support.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
WikiLeaks Assaults International Diplomacy
I was surprised and disturbed by the lack of outrage over the extraordinary leaks coming out of the WikiLeaks operation. There are even indications of support or approval, including from some in the mainstream media. To me, the results of this leaking of information ranged from embarrassment and chagrin to dangerous tampering with the mechanisms of diplomacy and government.
Don't misunderstand. I would agree that the role of a whistle blower can be important. If someone has information that serious violations of human or personal rights are being endangered, or that criminal violations are occuring, the whistle blower can be an individual of integrity and nobility serving the common good. A thoughtful individual who carefully concludes that a piece of information should come to light for the good of individuals or even the country and is willing to accept the consequences of his or her actions is to be applauded.
The indiscriminate distribution of some 250,000 documents to the press is another matter altogether. Did anyone even bother to screen these documents? Did it matter, or was this just an effort to demonstrate power, vent hostility, and cause harm to governments. The whole affair seems petty, thoughtless, and malicious. The leaks are clearly designed to cause as much disruption and damage as possible. This is not heroic it is offensive and dangerous.
Consider first, at the level of embarrassment, one's own personal situation. Do you really want what you say about your Aunt Minnie after she leaves, revealed to her and those around her when she arrives back at her home? Do we not expect our private conversations to be private? Is it no longer possible to share a serious private conversation without being in danger of having our private thoughts and secrets shared with others? Remenmber how betrayed we felt when we shared a confidence with a best friend and then found that it had been shared with others? How do leaders of other countries feel when they hear their private words bandied about the press, or when they see unflattering depictions of themselves from officials they had worked with in confidence? What damage will this do to future contacts with these and other foreign officials?
The press of course believes the public has a right to know in almost every instance. There is no doubt that there are too many secrets and many things are classified that need not be. Also, too many items are kept classified beyond the period of time that would be necessary or appropriate. Some recent efforts had been made to declassify many of these documents but it has ground to a halt, partly due to the problems of the Iraq war. More needs to be done along these lines, but this does not justify the wholesale dumping of material with no concern about who it may hurt or what damage it may cause. This is irresponsibility of the worst sort, because it involves the security and well being not just of this nation but of nations across the world.
There is appropriately much emphasis today on transparency and accountablility in the conduct of government, corporations and the like. In many cases open meetings are required and it is expected that no business will be conducted behind closed doors or decisions made that have not seen the light of day. Two memorable examples of business conducted in secret include the efforts to produce a health care plan during the Clinton administration, and the conversations Vice President Dick Cheney had with oil executives early in the George W. Bush administration.
While transparency and accountability are laudable goals, can any business really be conducted fully in the light of day? How do deals actually get made? Isn't it necessary to discuss and plan what is to take place? Can decision makers really talk openly and candidly and negotiate as necessary with the world looking on? I remember that Baltimore City required open meetings, yet when the school board would meet in public session to pass and implement policies the decisions had already been made prior to these open meetings. It is difficult for me to understand how it oould ever be otherwise.
On the national level the issue becomes even more complicated. Nations have positions that they have taken on issues important to their own interests. The whole point of diplomacy, however, is to nudge countries to more moderate or cooperative positions. As seen from the recent leaks, Saudi Arabia has adopted positions that are appropriate for public consumption, yet our goal may be to have them explore serious issues and consider options that may go beyond their stated public positions. It's bizarre to think all communication can be stated publicly without providing opportunities for private negotiations.
What will happen now? Who will be willing to make statements that might move negotiations forward if they think they may be reading their words on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. These kinds of leaks will paralyze internationaal diplomacy, and retard the possiblity of productive deals getting made. Who knows for how long this disruption to international diplomacy may continue? WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange should be dealt with in the most severe manner possible, and security must be truly made secure whatever that entails within the limits of the law.
Don't misunderstand. I would agree that the role of a whistle blower can be important. If someone has information that serious violations of human or personal rights are being endangered, or that criminal violations are occuring, the whistle blower can be an individual of integrity and nobility serving the common good. A thoughtful individual who carefully concludes that a piece of information should come to light for the good of individuals or even the country and is willing to accept the consequences of his or her actions is to be applauded.
The indiscriminate distribution of some 250,000 documents to the press is another matter altogether. Did anyone even bother to screen these documents? Did it matter, or was this just an effort to demonstrate power, vent hostility, and cause harm to governments. The whole affair seems petty, thoughtless, and malicious. The leaks are clearly designed to cause as much disruption and damage as possible. This is not heroic it is offensive and dangerous.
Consider first, at the level of embarrassment, one's own personal situation. Do you really want what you say about your Aunt Minnie after she leaves, revealed to her and those around her when she arrives back at her home? Do we not expect our private conversations to be private? Is it no longer possible to share a serious private conversation without being in danger of having our private thoughts and secrets shared with others? Remenmber how betrayed we felt when we shared a confidence with a best friend and then found that it had been shared with others? How do leaders of other countries feel when they hear their private words bandied about the press, or when they see unflattering depictions of themselves from officials they had worked with in confidence? What damage will this do to future contacts with these and other foreign officials?
The press of course believes the public has a right to know in almost every instance. There is no doubt that there are too many secrets and many things are classified that need not be. Also, too many items are kept classified beyond the period of time that would be necessary or appropriate. Some recent efforts had been made to declassify many of these documents but it has ground to a halt, partly due to the problems of the Iraq war. More needs to be done along these lines, but this does not justify the wholesale dumping of material with no concern about who it may hurt or what damage it may cause. This is irresponsibility of the worst sort, because it involves the security and well being not just of this nation but of nations across the world.
There is appropriately much emphasis today on transparency and accountablility in the conduct of government, corporations and the like. In many cases open meetings are required and it is expected that no business will be conducted behind closed doors or decisions made that have not seen the light of day. Two memorable examples of business conducted in secret include the efforts to produce a health care plan during the Clinton administration, and the conversations Vice President Dick Cheney had with oil executives early in the George W. Bush administration.
While transparency and accountability are laudable goals, can any business really be conducted fully in the light of day? How do deals actually get made? Isn't it necessary to discuss and plan what is to take place? Can decision makers really talk openly and candidly and negotiate as necessary with the world looking on? I remember that Baltimore City required open meetings, yet when the school board would meet in public session to pass and implement policies the decisions had already been made prior to these open meetings. It is difficult for me to understand how it oould ever be otherwise.
On the national level the issue becomes even more complicated. Nations have positions that they have taken on issues important to their own interests. The whole point of diplomacy, however, is to nudge countries to more moderate or cooperative positions. As seen from the recent leaks, Saudi Arabia has adopted positions that are appropriate for public consumption, yet our goal may be to have them explore serious issues and consider options that may go beyond their stated public positions. It's bizarre to think all communication can be stated publicly without providing opportunities for private negotiations.
What will happen now? Who will be willing to make statements that might move negotiations forward if they think they may be reading their words on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. These kinds of leaks will paralyze internationaal diplomacy, and retard the possiblity of productive deals getting made. Who knows for how long this disruption to international diplomacy may continue? WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange should be dealt with in the most severe manner possible, and security must be truly made secure whatever that entails within the limits of the law.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Campaign of Tom Perriello
It seems only fitting that I write a column about my nephew who is a Congressman in Virginia's fifth congressional district. Not only is he my nephew, but his campaign makes a great story. It is a story of a gifted young man who went into politics and was determined to do it his way. He had little interest in the political side of the equation and was primarily concerned with doing what he felt was in the best interest of his constituents in the fifth district. He worked hard, and campaigned tirelessly. This past summer he held more town hall meetings than any other congressman - listening and trying to explain why he felt the way he did about issues that were important to the district.
He was a progressive Democrat in a conservative district, but he didn't hide from his positions like many of his Democratic colleagues. He chose to highlight the benefits of the programs he supported and trusted that the people of his district would reward him for his hard work, his sincerity, and the strength of his convictions. He offers a shining example of how Democrats should have conducted themselves in the mid term elections.
There is only one small flaw in this great story. Tom Perriello did not win his race for reelection in the fifth district. The race was close. The final margin was less than 4%. He did significantly better than most other Democratic congressmen in similar situations, including those who tried to convince voters that they weren't really Democrats. Yet, It seems that the real story turns out to be that in this election it made no difference whether you ran from your beliefs or stood up for them. Democratic congressmen around the country fell victim to Republican and Tea Party candidates.
So is there anything we can take from what happened in this campaign Tuesday night? I believe that looking at the Tom Perriello we saw Tuesday night gives us some answers. He was able to stand on the stage and address the public with his head held high. He was clearly at peace and happy knowing that he had done a good job. There were no regrets. He believed in what he had been doing. He took the tough political votes without thinking about political considerations, but voting on what he believed to be the best interests of his congressional district.
So I believe that members of both parties still have much to learn from Tom's courage in Washington and in the campaign. Tom Perriello didn't win, but he had no doubts. He knew the terrible recession that would have followed without the stimulus and efforts to shore up the crumbling financial system. He knew energy independence required an energy bill, he knew Wall Street needed regulation, and he knew we needed to reform our health care system. He didn't flinch when it came to taking the tough votes, and he was proud to stand and explain the importance of those votes when questioned. Many could and did disagree with his prescription for the district, but no one could doubt his authenticity, his genuineness, and his desire to help the people of his district.
As we all waited together for election returns Tuesday night, Tom was indeed a tower of strength. He was busy comforting everybody from his youngest neices and nephews, to his Mom, to his campaign staff. He himself, however, was genuinely at peace and even happy about his two year stint as a congressman. He believes in his community and was honored to have been given the privilege of serving these people. The country needs more people like Tom, from whatever political persuasion, entering politics. Unfortunately, there are too few like him and our political discourse suffers as a consequence. Clearly there was no one, family or friend, who was with Tom Tuesday night, that was not filled with pride at his accomplishements
So, what's next. Many opportunities await Tom at this point. No decisions have been made yet, since the focus to the final moments had been on winning this election. Tom's future remains bright. He is destined to be a valuable contributor and leader in whatever endeavor he decides to pursue. The fifth district of Virginia is poorer this week, but the Tom Perriello legacy has just begun.
Congratulations Tom, for being who you are. There can be no doubt that your Dad is looking down with great pride.
He was a progressive Democrat in a conservative district, but he didn't hide from his positions like many of his Democratic colleagues. He chose to highlight the benefits of the programs he supported and trusted that the people of his district would reward him for his hard work, his sincerity, and the strength of his convictions. He offers a shining example of how Democrats should have conducted themselves in the mid term elections.
There is only one small flaw in this great story. Tom Perriello did not win his race for reelection in the fifth district. The race was close. The final margin was less than 4%. He did significantly better than most other Democratic congressmen in similar situations, including those who tried to convince voters that they weren't really Democrats. Yet, It seems that the real story turns out to be that in this election it made no difference whether you ran from your beliefs or stood up for them. Democratic congressmen around the country fell victim to Republican and Tea Party candidates.
So is there anything we can take from what happened in this campaign Tuesday night? I believe that looking at the Tom Perriello we saw Tuesday night gives us some answers. He was able to stand on the stage and address the public with his head held high. He was clearly at peace and happy knowing that he had done a good job. There were no regrets. He believed in what he had been doing. He took the tough political votes without thinking about political considerations, but voting on what he believed to be the best interests of his congressional district.
So I believe that members of both parties still have much to learn from Tom's courage in Washington and in the campaign. Tom Perriello didn't win, but he had no doubts. He knew the terrible recession that would have followed without the stimulus and efforts to shore up the crumbling financial system. He knew energy independence required an energy bill, he knew Wall Street needed regulation, and he knew we needed to reform our health care system. He didn't flinch when it came to taking the tough votes, and he was proud to stand and explain the importance of those votes when questioned. Many could and did disagree with his prescription for the district, but no one could doubt his authenticity, his genuineness, and his desire to help the people of his district.
As we all waited together for election returns Tuesday night, Tom was indeed a tower of strength. He was busy comforting everybody from his youngest neices and nephews, to his Mom, to his campaign staff. He himself, however, was genuinely at peace and even happy about his two year stint as a congressman. He believes in his community and was honored to have been given the privilege of serving these people. The country needs more people like Tom, from whatever political persuasion, entering politics. Unfortunately, there are too few like him and our political discourse suffers as a consequence. Clearly there was no one, family or friend, who was with Tom Tuesday night, that was not filled with pride at his accomplishements
So, what's next. Many opportunities await Tom at this point. No decisions have been made yet, since the focus to the final moments had been on winning this election. Tom's future remains bright. He is destined to be a valuable contributor and leader in whatever endeavor he decides to pursue. The fifth district of Virginia is poorer this week, but the Tom Perriello legacy has just begun.
Congratulations Tom, for being who you are. There can be no doubt that your Dad is looking down with great pride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
