The Threat of Violence

This week, Senator Clinton again showed her remarkable ability to amplify her own mistakes. Attempting to make the legitimate point that there is historical precedent for this year’s extended primary campaign, she chose her words poorly, referring to the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy. By so doing, she seemed to imply that a strong reason to continue her campaign is that someone very well may murder her opponent.

As the inevitable media firestorm began, she appeared to realize her mistake rather quickly, taking less than a day to emerge with an apology. But as she has done so many times before, she added insult to injury when her reaction to the controversy was even more offensive than the original misstep.

Pretending that the only reason her remarks had offended anyone was their insensitivity to the late Senator’s family, she issued a half-hearted politician’s apology to the Kennedys—but pointedly refused to apologize to her opponent.

No one thinks Senator Clinton actually wishes violence to befall Senator Obama. However, her behavior in this episode further accentuates the most significant distinction in this primary campaign—that between a politician and a leader.

Stuck in the Mud

Certainly a rough week for Senator Obama.

It matters not that former Congresswoman Ferraro’s racially insensitive comments—and her subsequent reiterations—were universally repudiated. Nor is it significant that that Obama handled the controversy with true statesmanship, refusing to brand Ms. Ferraro a racist but instead simply illustrating the inaccuracy of her viewpoint.

Irrelevant is Obama’s denunciation of his former pastor’s extreme and startling remarks, and the remarkable character he displayed by simultaneously refusing to repudiate the man who had brought him to God. It is not important that his immediate response to each unfortunate comment by a supporter offers a stark contrast to Senator Clinton’s actions in similar situations.

At the end of this week, what truly counts is that all of us are talking about garbage—about race, and racism, and “reverse racism” (itself a racist term). About gender and religious identity. About frightening middle names and sociological dividing lines. About anything and everything unrelated to the issues at hand and the future of the nation.

We are now in the mud—and everyone knows which of the two Democrats stands to benefit. But Senator Clinton does not realize the true harm she is doing: While dragging the race into the muck may be her only shot at the nomination, it simply makes John McCain’s eventual election more likely, no matter whom he faces.

The Slimy Road Ahead

The bad news for the Democratic Party (and for America) this morning is not which candidate had a good night, but rather the manner in which the victory was achieved. Hillary Clinton managed to pick up the few vital percentage points she needed in Texas and Ohio by pushing the race in a more negative direction than it had previously gone--subtly playing on racial and religious predjudices, and not-so-subtly fear-mongering in a way that would make Dick Cheney proud.

Clinton knows that negative innuendo and attack advertisments represent her only chance at securing the nomination. If voters walk into polling stations proud, hopeful, and optimistic, she loses. If they arrive cynical, fearful, and confused, she does well--but at what cost?

The decision Clinton faces is whether winning is worth poisoning the process and silencing the better angels of our nature. She has obviously made her decision. Get ready for two very ugly months.

Better at This

Comedians and rival politicians have made much of Barack Obama’s supposed preferential treatment at the hands of the national media. Op/ed pieces have even cited statistics showing the ratio of positive to negative coverage of Senator Obama to be significantly higher than the ratio for other candidates—especially Hillary Clinton.

While Obama certainly has benefited on occasion from glowing media treatment, the claims of bias make a false implication–specifically, that each candidate for public office should receive the same amount of positive and negative coverage as another. This argument relies on the assumption that all politicians are equal in their honesty, experience, consistency, and statesmanship. It assumes that all candidates are equally well-behaved on the campaign trail, and that all of them are hiding the exact same number of skeletons in their closets.

But this is not true. These candidates are unique individuals, with distinctive personal stories, who behave very differently with the public and the media. Simply put—some candidates run more positive campaigns than others. Some are more candid and magnanimous. Some statesmen (or women) perform better on a national stage.

The media have no responsibility to cover rival politicians in equally favorable or unfavorable fashions. They simply owe it to us to report the truth—what the candidates have said, whether or not it is true, what they have done, and what they plan to do. It’s not their fault if some people are simply better at this than others.

Transformation

To explain his decision to seek the presidency so early in his political career, Barack Obama makes the case that more time in Washington could cause him to become jaded and lose his commitment to his principles. While this is surely a convenient rhetorical justification for a calculated political decision, there is a living embodiment of his argument: Hillary Clinton.

It is easy to forget that the Clintons were not always the establishment juggernaut of the present day. They began their odyssey as idealists determined to challenge the entrenched system and change the nature of American politics. Sound familiar?

The vibrant young leader who dared to speak out against a foolish war, worked to uncover a corrupt administration, and hoped to build an issue-focused “politics of tomorrow” has slowly morphed into her opposite: a powerful, win-at-all-cost politician who epitomizes the system she once vowed to transform.

Somewhere, deep down, it must break her heart to hear Obama speak out with the passion and vision she once possessed.

A Winning Ticket?

Much of the televised analysis following last night’s refreshingly civil and issue-focused Democratic debate between Senators Obama and Clinton centered on the possibility of the two candidates joining forces as running mates. While it is an intriguing possibility, it is likely only if Clinton is the presidential nominee. Obama would be wise to look elsewhere to balance his ticket.

Clinton’s support comes from true-blue liberals, proud feminists, and the traditional Democratic Party establishment—not enough to win in November. Should she capture the nomination, she will desperately need to court the independents, first-time voters, and even Republicans that back Obama. Without him, independents and Republicans will undoubtedly drift toward John McCain, and previously energized newcomers are likely to stay home.

By contrast, if Obama is the nominee, he will probably gain the support of Clinton’s voters automatically. Her base is extremely unlikely to vote Republican, and probably will support any Democratic nominee to prevent a Republican victory. Obama’s biggest perceived weakness is experience, particularly in foreign policy and military affairs. In a running mate, he would look for gravitas and an established track record on military issues. Perhaps a General, a long-serving member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, or even a purple state governor with service experience would fit the bill.

Politics or Leadership?

Call it organized chaos. As we near Super-de-duper Tuesday, the most wide-open presidential race since 1928 has become neatly compartmentalized and remarkably symmetrical.

Each major party has narrowed its field to a genuine cross-party consensus-builder and a more conventional, divisive politician intent on playing hardball. And each has a third-place finisher—backed by voting blocs traditionally vital to the party’s success—poised to play king (or queen) maker.

Barack Obama’s hope of landing the Democratic nomination may rest on a John Edwards endorsement. More than any other candidate, Edwards ran a traditional Democratic campaign, wooing labor unions and crusading for the less fortunate. Sadly, he also garnered support from those Democratic voters uneasy supporting a woman or a non-white candidate. If Edwards can bring enough of those voters to the Obama camp, it may be just enough to overcome Hillary Clinton’s increasingly negative campaign.

Conversely, Mike Huckabee can probably guarantee McCain the Republican nomination by staying in the race and not endorsing anyone. Huckabee’s main supporters—conservative evangelical Christians—have never trusted McCain, and would be more likely to back Mitt Romney in a two-way contest. As long as he remains in the race, he keeps these votes from Romney, whose bottomless pit of corporate money and endless attack ads will probably not be enough.

Our country is desperate for more leadership and less politics. Let’s hope both parties reject slick politicians in favor of true leaders.

McCain's Miscalculation

One has to feel at least a little sympathy for John McCain. In 2000, he ran for President as the straight-shootin’, no-nonsense pragmatist who wouldn’t kiss up to anyone or allow himself to be held captive by ideologues and special interests. He did what many of us like to think we would if given the opportunity—he cut through the crapfest and behaved like a genuine leader.

It made him the most popular politician in the country for a few years (before and after the campaign), but alas, it was not a good formula for capturing the Republican nomination. He was, of course, passed on the right by George Bush, a man who epitomized ideological blindness, displayed insulting disingenuousness, and held virtually no ethical scruples regarding campaign finance and political hypocrisy. By rubber-stamping every wish of Big Business, by resisting any reform of the corrupted election process, by pitting neighbor against neighbor, by doing or saying whatever the cynical back-room operatives told him to, and by embracing those who represent the ugliest side of our country’s religious identity, Bush became the most well-financed campaign juggernaut in history—and ended up sitting in what many felt was McCain’s chair.

Not to be fooled again, McCain clearly decided to follow the Bush model for his second wild ride. While it has been sickening to see him transform from maverick hero to incorporated powerhouse, who could blame him? He already tried once to run as the Real Thing, and he lost. This time, he’s running hard to the right—embracing divisive and intolerant ideologues, supporting Bush’s war 1000%, and consolidating cash from any source he can.

So now that he has it all figured out, the nomination is automatic, right? Wrong. In a cruel bait-and-switch, the country is shifting out from under him. McCain has bolted to the right, only to find himself passed by Rudolph Giuliani in the independent center—McCain’s abandoned territory. He has become Bush 2000, only to realize the country is now finally ready for McCain 2000. And it is too late to go back.

Much like Barack Obama’s steady gains against Hillary Clinton in Democratic polls, Giuliani’s strength is due to the nation’s longing for someone—anyone—who can be genuine, or at least seem so. John McCain once held that position like no other figure in the country. He’s abandoned it, just when we were finally ready for it.

Obama's Announcement

Standing near the Old Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois, last Saturday—in single-digit weather, no less—I couldn’t help feeling I was a part of something special. Scores of politicians have hosted rallies in town squares over the years, and Presidential candidates have come and gone like failed sitcoms. But when Senator Barack Obama stepped up to the mike to share his vision for the nation, I felt I was witnessing the beginning of an important chapter in our history—the political and even spiritual reunification of our country.

I think most observers, from all points on the American political spectrum, recognize Senator Obama’s tremendous potential. But there is no guarantee he will live up to it. Just think of the accomplishments which could have come from a staggeringly talented Bill Clinton. And even though George Bush is not a dynamic political thinker—and doesn’t possess the unifying political philosophy necessary for true greatness—it pains one to think of the missed opportunities for national unity and international relations in the years following the terrorist attacks on our country.

But people seem to believe Senator Obama could meet that potential. Somebody does, once or twice a century. And he is the best chance we have seen in a generation.

This week, I called a lifelong friend—and a staunch Republican— in Iowa. He told me that he can’t stand most of the Democrats, especially Clinton and Edwards. But he just can’t bring himself to hate Obama. He can tell the guy knows what he’s talking about, and truly wants to heal this country.

I told my step mom to watch Oprah the day Barack was on. She called me later in the afternoon and told me she was ready to support him, all the way, no matter what. She could tell, she told me, that he truly wanted to find real solutions, and that he just might know how to do it.

My sister—the usually cynical, always sarcastic, borderline Republican—told me this week she is a proud member of the online group “Teachers for Obama.” The page turned for her when she had her students research the presidential candidates, using the newspapers and the candidates’ websites. The kids couldn’t for the life of them figure out where Hillary Clinton or John McCain stood on anything. But Obama was clear as crystal, and obviously telling the truth.

It all reminds me of what my uncle told me after the 2004 Presidential election. He said that all of his friends from work—no nonsense, blue-collar types—had voted for Bush, because they just didn’t think Kerry was genuine. Every single one of them said they would have voted for Howard Dean, had he been the nominee. Why? He said what he believed, and he meant what he said.

Senator Obama has that. He’s nothing if not genuine, and that is the only type of leader who can pull this country back together. I think people of all political stripes sense this is a person who could fundamentally change the public debate forever. The odds are against him, of course. The smart money would say that he won’t unseat juggernauts like McCain and Clinton, or conventional politicians like John Edwards and Mitt Romney.

But what if he does? What if he goes all the way? What if the country buys into the idea that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us? If it all comes to pass, then I will be able to tell my grandkids that I was there when it all started. That will make me proud. It already does.

Hypocrisy

The talk of the talking heads this morning centers on Barack Obama's admissions of drug use as a young man, and how badly this could hurt a potential White House run. Let me get this straight: We have no problem electing a man who is insultingly dishonest about his use of cocaine--and who clearly learned nothing from the experience but the importance of knocking it off if he wanted to play the politics game--but we won't accept a candidate who is candid and unashamed in speaking of his past, one who is willing to share his own experiences in order to address the serious issues of drug abuse, drug law, race, and young male identity. Wow. Every time you think the hypocrisy simply cannot be more brazen, they keep raising (or lowering) the bar.

Who Cares?

A topic covered on at least three cable news commentary programs Tuesday night was how the Iraq situation would harm the Republicans in elections to come. Does this seem backwards to anyone? It seems we are supposed to care first and foremost for our chosen political party, and hope the bad news doesn’t spoil their electoral success.

Call me crazy, but shouldn’t we care more about the bad news? As an American, a patriot, and a human being, I support whatever leaders can give us good government. I don’t care whether there is a “D” or an “R” or anything else next to their name. I generally support the Democrats at this moment in history because they are less corrupted than the other guys. Plus, their ideas are better.

If I woke up tomorrow and the Republicans were the party crusading for honest, accountable government, and calling for responsible, ethical military and foreign policy, I would vote for them. If George Bush reversed course and became a great president—or, let’s say, figured out a way to travel back in time and never choose to start this God-awful war—I would be delighted. I want a great president. I want a safe country, and a peaceful world. I don’t care what group of people delivers it. If the Republicans accomplished those things, I certainly wouldn’t care that it wasn’t my favorite team that did it.

But apparently, those are the priorities expected of us. If you are a Republican, you’re supposed to be sad that the war has cost your team some elections, and may cost more. You’re not supposed to be sad about the war itself. About Presidential dishonesty. About governmental corruption. About hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead. About 3,000 of our guys gone, 40,000 more maimed, and countless military families pressed to the breaking point. About actual terrorist threats left to simmer. About a mistake so grave—and tragically, so avoidable—it will darken and dominate global politics for a generation.

No, the talking heads—even the honorable ones—think we care more about rooting for our chosen political teams. I think they’re wrong. I think the average Republican loves his or her country more than some party organization. The average Democrat, too. How will the war affect the prospects of either party’s electoral success? Who the hell cares?

Back in the Saddle

Ah, peace. One month with no politics, no writing, no worrying about money and fear-mongering trumping democracy once again. For the first time since Shep was a pup, a national election managed to hold leaders accountable for corruption and incompetence. And now we’ve all had a little break to catch our collective breath. Yes, these post-election weeks have been a blessed respite.

It wasn’t all good, of course. Tammy Duckworth, the dynamic, decorated Iraq vet from Illinois sure would have made a powerful presence in Congress, but she lost in a squeaker to a young man who, despite having no military experience, attacked her relentlessly on the war and national security. Sigh.

And of course, let’s not forget the moderate Republicans—like Iowa’s Jim Leach, a truly good man and capable public servant—who went down through no fault of their own. As so often happens in politics, the extremists and thugs run the country into the ditch and let the honest public servants pay with their jobs. Sad.

But now it’s time to get to work. If this Congress is as dangerously negligent as the last, they will be just as deserving of ouster. They must lead now, boldly. And we must hold their feet to the fire.
So, one month later, I am back on the horse. The problems haven’t gone away, and neither have the responsibilities of citizenship. This will be an interesting year.

Jesus at the Ballot Box

So here we are again. Another election. Another chance to ask ourselves what kind of country we would like to have—and what sort of values we want displayed in our policies. Those of us who claim the Christian faith are accustomed to pondering what the Lord requires of us in all situations—of which voting is undoubtedly one of the most important. So how does Jesus want us to vote?

Political figures often claim to have the definitive answer—which inevitably includes supporting their particular positions at the moment. They know just how Jesus would vote, and they are eager to explain it to us.

In Illinois’ 2004 Senate race, Republican candidate Alan Keyes famously attempted to bait future Senator Barack Obama by declaring that Jesus would not vote for the Democrat. Sen. Obama’s off-the-cuff reply remains a gem of political class and intellect:

I leave it to God to decide how good a Christian I am. I leave it to the people of Illinois to decide how good a U.S. Senator I will be. I am unconcerned with Mr. Keyes’ opinion on either matter.

Well put, and fair enough. But while we are on the subject, what would Jesus’ opinion be? He would certainly be surprised—and likely dismayed—by the role his name and legacy play in our current politics. When we view the bundle of political goods peddled under the “Christian” brand, it is natural to wonder what Jesus would think of those politicians who most frequently and forcefully invoke his name. What would he think of the so-called “religious right?”

The problem here is in the question. It assumes the religious right is an exclusively modern phenomenon. In fact, however, most societies throughout history have featured those who use religion to consolidate and protect their political and economic power. The time of Jesus was certainly no exception. So the real question is not what he would have thought of the religious right, but rather what he did think of them.

Sadly for many of today’s politicians the answer is: not much. Jesus was unabashed in his opposition to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other corrupted religious authorities of his day. He boldly challenged their version of God’s message. They could quote all the scripture they wanted, but to Jesus, they were missing the point—blind to the will and word of God.

Scripture demanded the adulteress be stoned, but Jesus declared that God had a better way. Dogmatic law dictated societal segregation, but Jesus embraced the Samaritan. Tradition allowed for shady financial deals in the temple, but Jesus would have none of it. Religious authorities sought to consolidate political power, but Jesus drew a line between God and Caesar.

And most importantly, when religious leaders stressed adherence to a particular interpretation of arcane rules, Jesus told them to toss out the book. All we need, he said, is to love the Lord our God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Politicians often tell us that voting for “Christian values” means supporting certain views on abortion or sexuality. But are those really the priorities of Jesus? Is that the extent of his message for us? It seems to this Christian that he had his eyes on a bigger picture.

How would he vote? I do not know. But I can follow his example to the best of my ability by praying to God and voting for the benefit of my neighbor—rich or poor, American or Iraqi, Christian or not. My heart and soul tell me to vote against war-making, against hypocrisy and dishonesty, against corruption and injustice. My mind and strength will lead me to stand up for a change.

The Only Way to Go?

"I will vote," says the man at the church potluck, "and I'll vote the Republican line. It's the only way to go." I am watching a feature story on supposed voter apathy among the Republican Party's core voters. As the reporter finds, the malaise might not be enough to keep them away from the polls. As disappointed as they are with the performance of their leaders, many longtime Republican voters will show up on November 7, hold their nose, and vote the bums back in. If this is true, the expected Democratic sweep may never materialize.

Over the past three decades, the Republican Party has planned and executed a magnificent marketing strategy. They have managed to convince a large segment of the population that they are the only genuine option. They are patriots who love America; those who disagree with their actions or policies are traitors to their country. They speak with the voice of God in defining family, morality, values, and faith; all others are heretical. They want to protect us from evil people; their opponents and critics want us to die.

Much like a successful corporation--think Coca-Cola or Nike--they have secured brand loyalty that is completely independent from the actual quality of the product produced. The man at the potluck will vote their way not because they produce ethical, efficient government, but rather because he trusts the brand. It is the only way to go.

The party regularly tests this notion by flatly betraying conservative ideals. They give us fiscally irresponsible budgets, setting records for spending and deficits. They lead us into reckless foreign entanglements. They strip away our constitutional liberties and our system of checks and balances. Faced with a choice between voting “conservative,” and voting Republican, the voters—time and time again—choose party over principle.

With no need to worry that voters will hold them accountable, officials in our national government have virtually no incentive to govern well, or to lead responsibly. I hope that the man in the story will realize that anyone who fights for what he or she thinks is best for the country is a patriot. I pray he realizes that all of us have values, and want what is best for our families. And deep down, he has to know already that all of our leaders, regardless of party or political philosophy, want to protect us.

I hope he carries these thoughts with him into the privacy of the voting booth. I hope we all do.

Compassion

A proverb that floats around charity and non-profit circles goes like this: "Without passion, nothing happens. Without compassion, bad things happen." Sometimes I wish our civil leaders were more familiar with the phrase.

The news this week has offered us some valuable lessons in compassion—some amazing examples to emulate, and some inexplicably shameful actions from which we can all learn.

We have the gut-wrenching story from Lancaster County, PA, where a desperate and very ill man murdered five schoolgirls, and wounded five others, before committing suicide. Sadly, we have seen this movie before. We know how it goes. Next come the vengeful quotes from the understandably devastated families. Then the lawyers and media descend, trying to find the most marketable scapegoat. Politicians jump at the chance to exploit the families’ grief and rage. Later—much, much, later—we turn on the television to see the parents telling Oprah how they have pieced their lives back together. They can never forgive, they tell us, but they have to move on. We nod in agreement, marveling at their strength, still seething with vicarious anger.

But that is not what happened in Pennsylvania, because, as we all know, this was no ordinary schoolhouse. This man chose an Amish community for his attack, and if there can be a bright side to this awful episode, it is our opportunity to learn from the actions of a truly compassionate people.
Can you ever forgive? Most of us would require years of therapy just come to grips with question. Not in Lancaster County. The day after the shooting, the mother of one of the victims told a reporter she had already forgiven the gunman, saying “Christ forgave us. We must forgive each other.” The same afternoon, community leaders contacted the perpetrator’s family to offer their deepest empathy and support. This is their way. They preach humility and peace, and lead by example. Times of trouble serve to reinforce, not threaten, their faith.

I witnessed this incredible spirit when my wife lost her uncle Steve in a construction accident last year. Steve ran a fine carpentry business in central Michigan, and employed many of the local Amish men. Carpentry is a cultural tradition for the Amish, and their workmanship is nearly unequaled. During that long, terrible night in the hospital, and the funeral services later in the week, they were a constant presence. I was—and remain—truly in awe of their wisdom, strength, and moral leadership.

It seems our leaders in Washington would do well to learn from that example. When it was revealed that Congressman Mark Foley of Florida had been taking sexual advantage of underage pages, Congressional leadership reacted the same way any of us would—with disgust. Now, however, it appears Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and others knew about this behavior months ago, and chose to do nothing. They chose to protect their political party instead of the minors entrusted to their care. The fear of political fallout and the pressure to win carried the day over the well-being of these young people. In short, our leaders demonstrated a tragic lack of compassion for those who needed their protection.

Should we judge Speaker Hastert’s entire career over this episode? No. Is he an evil man who wants to see children harmed? Not likely. But he and his leadership team made a colossal error in moral judgment, and should pay with their jobs.

Their error was in their fundamental lack of compassion. Just as a disturbed gunman in a schoolhouse, they lost the ability to feel empathy for the victims. We must follow the lead of the Pennsylvania Amish, and fill that compassion void. Protect future children from the risk of another cover-up by removing those responsible. Show God’s compassion by forgiving Speaker Hastert, the other senior leadership, and even Congressman Foley for their actions. Learn from these mistakes, move on together, and strive always to remember that virtue without which only bad things will happen–compassion.

What the polls say...

The magic number for Democrats is shrinking, bit by bit. One offshoot of the horrible situation surrounding the resignation of Congressman Foley of Florida is that Democrats will now pick up his seat, barring some inexplicable event. It is too late for the Republicans to get Foley's name off the ballot. This brings the number to 12 for the House. That's doable.

The Senate appears within reach, as well. The latest poll numbers are promising.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046834/

I know Democrats will not sweep in and clean up the country. I know we'll still face the same problems, with the same potential for corruption and incompetence. But I'm rooting for them anyway. Strongly. There is almost no way they could be worse. And perhaps the Republicans would truly analyze what caused them to lose, and face what has happened to their party. A more responsible and honest, reformed Republican Party would be healthy for the nation, too.

Overcoming Bitterness and Contempt

Every so often, I catch myself simply grandstanding for the Democratic Party, behaving very much like those with whom I so sharply disagree. It does not solve anything. Of course, people of both parties and all stripes have contributed to the problems we face. So how do we tow the line between blind partisanship and passionate involvement?

One of the common mistakes we all tend to make is assuming that one major party is always the direct opposite of the other. Hence, if one party has an irresponsible record on an issue, then the other must be saintly and squeaky-clean. The President does something foolish or dishonest; the opposition is therefore wise and true.

We all know in our hearts that it is simply not true. The parties operate independently of one another, often falling victim to the same corrupting influences. If the Democrats take one or both houses of Congress, or even the Presidency, nothing magically changes. Our problems will not vanish. If they repeat the mistakes of the present leaders, allowing the same level of corruption and incompetence, our country—and the world—is no better off. And if Democratic leaders use religion as a tool to pit some against others, to keep us divided, to justify, excuse and even conceal unethical policies, we are right where we started.

It is also a common mistake to root for political parties as if they were football teams. A good fan will stick by a team no matter how poorly they perform, simply because he likes them better. We often treat our parties likewise, sticking by them even when they give us terrible government, simply because we like their slogans, style, and subculture better than that of the other team. We sometimes even take it a step farther, refusing to accept or acknowledge that our favorite team has performed the way it has. Witness diehard Republicans’ unwillingness to have an honest conversation about Katrina last year.

As people of faith, and as responsible citizens, we must hold all public officials accountable. The need of the country must remain more important than the interests of a party. I sense there is nothing I could tell the average Bush supporter about the botched gulf coast response, the causes of poverty, the selling of the Iraq war, the suppression of free speech, the flaws in our health care system, the way elections are conducted, or the degradation of our environment that they would be willing to hear. Nor would most of them seek to find honest answers to those questions for fear of what they would discover.
But they would be right to point out that many Democrats have contributed to these failures, acting out of political self-preservation or conflicting interests. And some Republicans have worked to address them, though sadly, they are usually attacked and marginalized within their own party for doing so. As I malign the poor performance of the other party, I need to urge my own party to live up to its promises.

No, the Democratic Party is not the perfect answer. In fact the organization is often infuriating in its ineptitude. But they do promise to tell the truth about the problems we face, to work for fairness, justice, and equality, to end the pay-for-play system in Washington, and to adapt when approaches fail. At least they are willing to try. That has to be better than what we see today. My moral values tell me so.

That is a term Republicans have co-opted for years, sometimes to justify profoundly immoral actions. We have watched them transform the common connotation of the word “Christian” from one of charity and peace to one of prejudice, hate, and exclusion. This is maddening to progressive Christians like me. Our priorities are driven by our faith, and we are no less Christian, less moral, less loving of families, less values-conscious than anyone else. Non-Christians I know feel the same way.

As people of all faith traditions watch “morality” be misused time and time again for partisan purposes, we often fall into the traps of bitterness and contempt. This is natural and understandable—we are only human. But we also need to remember that there is a better way for us—a more difficult way. We must counter not with our own rage, but with compassion. It is a tall order, but we can and should hold each other to that standard as we continue to engage those of a different philosophical persuasion. Perhaps if we created more honest dialogue and reduced “wedge issue” gamesmanship, we would be able to truly bring Americans together.

Family? Values?

This week, several Republican groups will hold a “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, D.C., where they promise to discuss ways to “fight for the family” and “defend Christian Values”.

Like most Christians, and most people in general, I love my family. And I embrace many values, among them honesty, fairness, compassion, justice, and peace. I also value transparency and accountability in governance, and ethical behavior in our public policy here and abroad. Without question, these values are rooted in my Christian faith, and strengthened by my loving family. But I am not invited to Washington this week.

I am not welcome at the gathering because people like me do not hold the politically convenient set of values, or sufficiently limit our definition of “family.” For decades, fundamentalists have used these universally positive terms as weapons to further a political agenda—specifically, to inject a narrow interpretation of religious scripture into our laws. Those who hold different values—even if they are driven by the very message of Jesus Himself—are marginalized at best, and demonized at worst. We find ourselves derided as “anti-family,” and “anti-values”—phrases that make no sense, if one really thinks about them.

My values may not be theirs, but they are values, nonetheless. They are the same values I learned in Sunday School, and from my family. They are the values of the Jesus I know.

Jesus did not have much to say about abortion or homosexuality—the issues of choice for the Summit crowd. But he was very clear on how we should treat the poor, the underserved, the meek, the hungry, the sick, the naked, the imprisoned. Of those most vulnerable souls among us, he said “Most certainly, I tell you, in as much as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

So what will be the talk at the gathering? How to eradicate poverty? The fight to guarantee healthcare for everyone? The best way to end the suffering of this war? Not likely. No, we will hear sound bites attacking gay people, and women who value their right to choose.

I will not be in Washington this week. Like most people, and even a great many Christians, I am excluded. Exclusion, you see, is real mission of the “summit.” After the criminal negligence of Hurricane Katrina, the widespread poverty that continues around us, the grossly immoral drive for war, and the profiteering that followed, perhaps we should ask ourselves: Does Christ have a better mission for us? What are the real Christian family values?

Five years later, what could have been...

It has long been said that each of us, upon death, could be reduced to the most painful of tears if our heavenly maker showed us the life we could have lived.

Everyone who cares about our country and our world needs to read Jonathan Alter's brilliant piece in Newsweek this week. It tells us different story of the last five years--one of leadership, unity, peace, and progress. A chronicle of what could have been.

It may not reduce our current leaders to tears, because they will never read it. But it should cause the rest of us to pause. Just think about the opportunities we have missed. These are not fantasies. We could have had this kind of leadership. Our country has seen it before. How can we find it again? What qualities should we look for in the occupant of the oval office? How can we find and elect someone with the strength of character to make this alternate history a reality?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14753927/site/newsweek/

Faithful Democrats

Faithful Democrats is here! Please tell any and everyone you know about this vital organization. The Republican Party has exploited the fear and prejudices of Christians for years, to the detriment of our country. Help put an end to it.

Christianity teaches us compassion, peace, charity, fairness, and justice. These are the values the Democratic Party has worked for decades to instill in our public policy.

Whatever your beliefs, please support this effort to overcome the appalling religious hypocrisy that currently dominates the values debate.

Check it out at www.faithfuldemocrats.com

Any questions?

We are now completely through the looking glass. Up is down. Wrong is right. And only the chosen few have the answers. The rest of must be silent.

Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld accused his critics of “moral and intellectual confusion,” a shameless assault on countless elected officials from both major parties and a vast majority of Americans. Those who doubt him are assisting the rise of a new brand of fascism, he explained.

President Bush followed on Thursday by telling us all that we did not start or choose this war. We are defending ourselves against the ruthless forces that attacked and killed 3,000 of our citizens. We must defeat totalitarianism, the President warned.

To review:

The people who planned a war by ignoring and overruling the advice of military leaders and advisors are brilliant. Those who question them are intellectually confused.

The deaths of at least 45,613 civilians in a country which had no involvement in the 2001 terrorist attacks represent payback for the 3,000 killed in the attacks. The folks responsible for the attacks are still at large, and that is okay. Those who question this are morally confused.

We attacked the aforementioned country, a secular regime which had not attacked or planned to attack us, after falsely alleging they had stockpiles of forbidden weapons and connections to fundamentalist terrorist networks. But we didn’t choose to.

A corrupt nationalist administration, which first achieved power through a fraudulent election, regularly suppresses human rights and the freedom of speech, controls large portions of the media, aligns itself firmly with corporate power, uses opponents as scapegoats, and is rampant with cronyism is busy fighting against fascism. Their critics are the fascists.

The President who repeatedly asserts that he has no obligation to follow laws he dislikes and that he may imprison anyone at anytime for any reason tells us we must conquer totalitarianism.

Any questions? Feel free to keep them to yourself.



For more, check out the incomparable Keith Olbermann at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12131617/#060830a

Fox News: Manufacturing Outrage

This week, in their latest attempt to create a Republican talking point out of clean air, Fox News released the results of a poll that proved Democrats hate America. You may have read about it. The question they asked was this: "Do you want President Bush to succeed?" Of course, it's a ridiculously flawed question, and they know it. This is the latest example of Fox masquerading as an objective journalistic enterprise, while subtly helping to maintain the divisive atmosphere that keeps Bush and Co. in business.

They know that anyone hearing the question can interpret it one of two ways:

1) Do I want Bush to keep doing what he's doing to the country and to get what he wants--tax breaks for the rich, welfare for large corporations, blending of church and state, suppression of dissent, elimination of Constitutional checks on presidential power, a terrified populace, and a one-party state?

2) Do I want Bush to do a good job, to start being an honest, effective, responsible, competent President, thereby helping our country be a more just, fair, and safe place?

Obviously, the answer depends on how you interpret the question. Turns out a little more than half (51%) of Democrats heard question #1. That's all the R's needed to rehash their favorite equation: Bush=America; those who disagree with Bush are against America; Democrats hate America.

We shouldn't get upset because the Republican Party has a media arm to spin out their propaganda. They have the money and power, why wouldn't they? It's smart politics, and it's served them well. What we need to expose is their fundamental dishonesty in pretending to be something they are not--specifically, a legitimate news organization. Journalists seek information and report facts, occasionally creating genuine controversy. Propagandists suppress information, invent "facts," and manufacture outrage.

We're not leaving

During an impassioned press conference yesterday, President Bush accidentally slipped into the unfamiliar realm of honesty. Regarding the war in Iraq, he emphatically declared “We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President.” He quickly reverted to the familiar, misleading rhetoric about coming home “when the mission is completed” and all of the wonderful progress we’re making.

Remember when Paul Wolfowitz said the war would take three to six weeks? Or dear old Don Rumsfeld saying in 2003 he doubted the insurgency would last six months? We all, of course, remember Bush declaring, "Mission Accomplished" three years ago. Later we handed over "sovereignty," yet continued to occupy the country. As this painful historical re-run has played out, we have been told countless times that the end was right around the corner. As painful as it was to hear, Bush's inadvertent candor was probably for the best.

This is a reality that everyone, across the entire political spectrum, needs to face. These people do not plan to end this war. We are there to stay, as long as this bunch is running things. Since the invasion, the U.S. has been building permanent bases. Are these gifts to the Iraqi "government?" Not likely. The intention is, and always has been, to invade and stay.

We see a lot of politicians on television debating over the best time to leave. Immediately? On a schedule? As we meet certain objectives? When a new Iraqi army is strong enough? It seems no one is willing to face the uncomfortable truth that Bush and Co. aren't pulling us out no matter what.

As we think back to every time Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice told us how hard they were working to bring Iraq to the point we could leave, it becomes very chilling. Every single one of those times, they weren't stretching the truth. They weren't being a bit disingenous. Every one of those times, they were lying.

So yesterday, at least for a few seconds, we got something different: the truth. I'm not sure which is better.

Gay marriage: one straight guy's view

We hear a lot lately about attacks on the “institution of marriage." Bloviating politicians promise to “defend” it from this perilous onslaught. Groups emerge with names like “Protect Marriage Illinois,” and senators take to the floor with dark predictions of a “world without marriage.” With all this talk of fighting for marriage, I have to ask: has someone proposed banning it? Is there a movement to outlaw straight marriage? Because I have to say, that sounds like a bad idea. I’d definitely be against that. I hope my beautiful wife would, too.

See, the thing is, I like being married to my wife. I like that when I decided to spend all my remaining days with the one I love, the law of the land allowed me to do so. I take comfort in knowing that if I’m in lying in a hospital someday, unable to speak for myself, my best friend and life partner will be allowed to make decisions for me. I appreciate the way my employer provides her with insurance, just for being married to me. And, of course, I really like the way the IRS rewards us for living in this committed arrangement. I’m able to enjoy these benefits for one reason: I was born with a disposition to be sexually drawn to the opposite sex.

In truth, of course, no one is threatening to take my marriage away. There is, however a growing movement to extend this basic civil right to all citizens, regardless of orientation. Opponents of this cause know they have to frame the issue dishonestly to win any support at all. Thus the negative, reactionary effort to keep certain people from enjoying a right is sold as a positive issue. Rhetoric and actions that can only be described accurately as anti-gay and anti-equal rights become "pro marriage" and "pro family."

Are these folks really “fighting for marriage?” Of course not. When was the last time you heard one of these “defenders” of marriage calling for a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce? Or how about a law to increase the penalties for deadbeat parents? Or, if marriage is for the purpose of biologically continuing human existence, why don’t we hear calls to ban sterile or post-menopausal people from marrying? The answer is that these people are not actually interested in defending marriage from any actual threats. They are interested in attacking people they do not like.

These people are terrified. For years, they have successfully stereotyped homosexuals as godless, immoral, unpatriotic, and promiscuous. Now the gays want to attend church, raise children, serve proudly in the military, and get married. We have long heard that the gays don’t share mainstream America’s values. Lord, if these values aren’t mainstream, what are?

The fundamentalists dominating the gay marriage debate like to frame the issue as a religious one. Liberals scoff at this notion—arguing that the issue at hand is civil rights, plain and simple—but I tell you this: the left has it wrong on this point. Marriage equality is definitely a religious issue. Almost every opponent of gay marriage is so because of his or her religious beliefs. These people fight against gay marriage because they believe being gay is a sin, so they fight against gay people. It is important to recognize this because we live in a country where our freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed.

In our great nation, you are free to believe being gay is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong. You are also free to attend a church that refuses to perform such ceremonies. I, on the other hand, am free to hold a different religious belief, and to worship with a welcoming and affirming congregation that celebrates love between all committed adults (which, in fact, I do). Yet another citizen is free to get married down at the courthouse, without the blessing of any church. The government is constitutionally forbidden from forcing me and my church to subscribe the beliefs held by you and yours. And neither one of us can force the courthouse couple to play by our rules.

There are still churches in our country that refuse to celebrate interracial marriages, and their right to practice this faith is constitutionally protected. But the government, of course, can no longer restrict marriage based on race. In the United States, we have citizens who believe it is wrong to eat pork, or beef, or any meat at all on Fridays. Some Americans don’t believe in working on the Sabbath, be it Saturday or Sunday. Some believe it is wrong for a woman to cut her hair short, wear pants, or speak in church. Yet I hear of no plans for a Constitutional amendment to ban bacon or Sunday afternoon football games. Basing the law that governs all citizens on the religious restrictions of some is profoundly undemocratic, and contrary to everything for which our country stands.

We do not choose our sexuality, as some ludicrously claim. I certainly don’t remember choosing to develop an interest in girls as a young man. To this day, I don’t think I could choose to go the other way for all the cash in Sam Brownback’s bank account. (A side note to anyone with gay feelings who’s forcing themselves into a straight relationship: You’re being incredibly cruel to someone for whom you profess to care very deeply; and you’re heading for overwhelming heartbreak.) Amending our Constitution to single out a group of people—identifiable only by an involuntary characteristic—and deny them a specific right is the beginning of the end. It’s the slipperiest of slopes.

Allowing others the right to a marriage will not nullify yours or mine. No straighties will be forced into gay marriages. Don’t believe in it? Fine. Don’t do it. But let your fellow citizens make up their own minds, and keep the government out of it.

This is one straight guy who will stand up and fight for marriage. For everyone.

Who's out of touch?

Here's an important thing to remember while the Republicans and their deputized pundits blast the Democrats for rejecting Lieberman's "mainstream" views in favor of the "far left" candidate, Lamont: 60 % of the American public opposes Bush's war. 57% favor establishing a timetable for withdrawl. In politics, that's almost as decisive as it gets. A clear majority of Americans feel the war was a mistake, and that it's time to go.

So every time you hear Connecticut Democrats accused of picking the extreme partisan over the centrist statesman, take pause.

Who's really speaking for the mainstream here? And who's out of touch?

Christian Democrats

If you have the means, please contribute to Faithful Democrats. Help reclaim the words "morality," "family," "values," and "Christian" from the religious right. Help spread the word that equal rights is a morality issue. Poverty is a values issue. Families come in all shapes, sizes, and definitions. Help convince Christian voters they can vote Democratic, and help send a message to the Democrats that many of us vote for them because of our Christian values.

Go the this site to find out more: http://faithfuldemocrats.com/default.aspx

Anything you can give will help this country immeasurably.

Lamont's Victory

Last night, Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary. Most in the media had characterized the race as a battle for the soul of the party, a left-wing witch hunt, with moderate Joe besieged by the lunatic left. Would the voters choose this insurgent, unpatriotic cut-n-runner? Or would they stand by their buddy, ol’ bi-partisan Joe? The common spin was that a Lamont victory would surely mean the permanent marginalization of the party. Oh, those wacky, inept Democrats. There they go, shooting themselves in the bullet-ridden stumps that used to be their feet.

This is not only lazy journalism; it’s inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. This primary was not about ideology. It was not about any one issue, no matter how large the war looms. It certainly wasn’t a conspiracy. This primary election was about one thing: accountability. Our system of government depends on the principle that we can hold our representatives responsible for their actions. If they lose their way, we can fire them. Now, we all know this is a lot easier on paper--like the pages of high school civics textbooks--than it is out in the big, bad, world, especially in the age of Tom DeLay. Thanks to gerrymandering, media control, and our rigged campaign finance system, tossing out an incumbent is next-to-impossible.

That’s why it took a perfect storm to get us to this point. Ned Lamont has plenty going for him, including personal wealth, charisma, articulate policy positions, and a dynamite team. But that’s only half the story. Without Lieberman’s pathetic performance, there would have been no primary challenge.

So where did Joe go wrong? Was he too moderate for the radical party base? Is he a relic from the age of statesmen, unfit for this era of bitter partisanship? No. In fact, he is ideologically where a lot of Americans—and a lot of his own constituents—are: conservative in some areas, liberal in others, a common-sense approach to policy. Sounds like my neighbor. Joe’s not in trouble because he’s too far to the right, or left, or center. He faced a challenge, and lost (for now), because he has no spine.

Joe’s third Senate term saw the rise of the most corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent Presidential administration in our nation’s history. We’ve had Presidents breach their Constitutional authority before. We’ve certainly had institutional corruption for hundreds of years. And our country has seen its share of poor leadership decisions. But we’ve never seen it all in one package. Not like this. And since George Bush is a Republican, and R’s are conservative, that means anyone who criticizes his conduct is a liberal. One’s liberalism can be measured, or so it seems, by how vehemently one criticizes poor George. More inaccurate, lazy reporting. Remember the tenets of traditional populist conservatism: small government, personal freedom, humility and caution in our foreign affairs. George isn’t a conservative. He’s not a liberal. He doesn’t fight for a cause or a philosophy. He takes care of No. 1. That’s it.

And how did our man Joe respond to this profound challenge to our system of government and our way of life? Like our President, and Machiavelli before him, he took care of himself. Like the Gmork in The Neverending Story (non-nerds, Google that one), he bet on the side he thought would win. Not wanting to be left out in the cold when this bunch secured total power, he decided to help them any way he could. He sabotaged any efforts at real opposition. He lambasted Democrats, or anyone, who questioned the unconstitutional and unethical behavior of the Bushies. He even ran for President on a Bush-is-really-okay-stop-being-so-negative platform. Why? Political survival. He wanted to keep his job, above all else. It’s great fun being a U.S. Senator. He’s hardly the first to scrap his integrity for his job security. He won’t be the last.

But he guessed wrong. He failed to realize that people are so angry at the disintegration of our democracy that they’re clamoring for real leadership-crying out for anyone to stand up and tell the truth. Remember Profiles in Courage? Kennedy’s tribute to leadership was all about taking principled positions in the face of overwhelming political pressure to fold. That’s what people so desperately want, and that’s what Ned Lamont promises.

This little blue-state primary represents one of two things. It could be the last gasp of true democracy before our fair republic truly becomes an empire—with leaders selected by the powerful, and completely unaccountable. But I don’t think so. I think it’s the beginning of a better time, an age when the people began to take back their country. Left, right, or center, what people want is honesty and accountability. Transparent, ethical representation. Real elections, with real choices.

In Connecticut’s general election, voters will have a real choice. They will be able to support a person willing to provide true opposition, rather than a lapdog waiting for his next “good boy” kiss.

Lieberman vows to run as an independent candidate, and the odds are with him. Remember, he pulls Republican and independent voters very well. In a three-way race, he could easily suppress this annoying show of democracy. As he said himself, he cannot and will not accept the democratic result. He is more important than democracy. So how can we help? Contribute to Ned Lamont’s campaign. Talk to anyone you know in Connecticut. Write letters to editors demanding they treat Ned Lamont as the reasoned, articulate, brave candidate he is.

This is the beginning. Remember, as Studs Terkel says, “hope dies last.” There is always hope. Ned’s going to win. And that’s a good thing. Don’t worry about Joe. He’ll be fine.