Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Called to a higher allegiance: the welcome new evangelical manifesto

My father’s former student Richard Mouw (president of Fuller Seminary, philosopher, theologian and blogger) announces the release of a very fine statement that deserves more attention than it has yet received: The Evangelical Manifesto, a Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment. The full text is on the website in PDF, a summary is here. Signed by Dr. Mouw and many other leading evangelicals, it is a most welcome manifesto.

In the introduction, it says We Evangelicals are defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Amen, amen, amen. When I continue to describe myself as an evangelical — one who is pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-environment — I am regularly accused of misrepresenting the “evangelical” brand. This splendid manifesto reminds us that to be an evangelical is to believe a few key things about Jesus of Nazareth and His role in our lives and the redemption of Creation; there are no litmus tests — not even on abortion or homosexuality — that define the movement. Continue reading ‘Called to a higher allegiance: the welcome new evangelical manifesto’

“Dispatches from Flyover Country”

I have never been to Indiana. Lauren Bruce of Feministe and Faux Real Tho (and designer of this blog) is a native daughter, and she has a terrific piece in the Prospect this week. It’s a vital corrective to the stereotype-laden coverage that has saturated the media in the days leading up to Tuesday’s primary.

Arnold redefines “bi”-partisanship

It’s hard to stay too angry at Governor Schwarzenegger for long, even as he says remarkably maddening and inane things. Still, at least fifty percent of the time he represents a kind of moderate, sensible Republicanism that has been almost obliterated from the American scene. As one who wants to see the GOP return to the tradition of Pete McCloskey and Millicent Fenwick, I have a healthy dose of affection for my state’s governor, even as I have not forgotten his many shortcomings and liabilities.

But today’s quote from Arnold is priceless:

“I sleep with a Democrat every night. If I can do it, legislators can too. I’m not telling them to sleep together. That’s not what I’m saying, but…”

I love my state. (Cap tap to my former student and GOP politico, Brandon Powers). And I sleep with a woman with whom I share my life but not a common political outlook, so the governor and I have something in common beyond our Austrian heritage.

Spitzer sadness

I’m saddened by the announcement today that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, a promising and exciting progressive voice in American politics, has admitted involvement with a prostitution ring.

Spitzer’s record on women’s issues has been solid. This revelation from the married father of three is devastating, not least because it reinforces what we all insist should still be seen as a myth: that progressive, pro-feminist men are incapable of matching their public language with their private lives. (Roll call: Bill Clinton, Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, Henry Cisneros, and so on and so on.) It’s not that only progressive men commit infidelity, and it’s not as if “ordinary” marital infidelity is entirely equivalent to involvement in prostitution. But those who work for justice for women, and do so publicly, connect the cause for which they fight with their own personality and their own behavior. I’ve made the case that private morality does matter, in this post here. Continue reading ‘Spitzer sadness’

Barack Obama, first-rate theologian: on Romans 1, Matthew 5, and “obscurity”

I’m watching primary results tonight with a sanguine air; I still remain conflicted about who it is I want to win the Democratic nomination, and if I had to pick tonight, I’d still pick the junior senator from New York. As I type, I’m watching one of my heroes, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (who is — and this is not well-known — one of the best friends to the animal rights movement in the House) speak in Ohio at the Clinton victory party. But I have much affection for the dynamic Illinois senator as well.

In any event, that senator, Barack Obama is taking some heat from the religious right for his interpretation of Scripture. In Ohio, last week, according to the Baptist News, he spoke about same-sex unions.

“I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. “I don’t think it should be called marriage but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.”

The Baptist News notes that the Sermon on the Mount is Matthew 5; the Romans passage is from the first chapter, verses 26-32. The Baptists complain that Obama is cherry-picking Scripture. Conservative talk-show host (and Mitt Romney biographer) Hugh Hewitt writes:

…even liberal evangelicals are going to be scratching their heads of Obama’s approach to Scripture…

“Godwin’s Law” warns against the use of Hitler or Nazi analogies in arguments. A second useful law: A candidate should never cite Scripture except with great specificity and unless he or she expects and desires to return to the subject and have every reference they used parsed over by millions of Bible readers.

Well, I’m pretty confident I meet the definition of a “liberal evangelical”, and I know my Scripture reasonably well. And Obama nailed it perfectly when he described Romans 1 as “obscure“. Obscure is often misunderstood to mean “unimportant”. But it doesn’t mean that; Webster says it means “not readily understood or clearly expressed.” Ask nine out of ten New Testament theologians about what Paul’s point is in the first chapter of this, his greatest letter, and most will say “yeah, it’s obscure.” While the Sermon on the Mount was just that — a sermon to a large crowd in which Jesus makes bold, prophetic statements about how we are to live, Romans is a densely argued, tremendously complex letter that touches on issues such as grace, the necessity of the cross, and the church-state relationship. Continue reading ‘Barack Obama, first-rate theologian: on Romans 1, Matthew 5, and “obscurity”’

A few notes on feminism, symbols, and youthful Obamophilia

The powerful attraction that the young have to Barack Obama has been much discussed, and lately, I’ve been trying to tease out some of the thinking that underlies the devotion to the junior senator from Illinois. In the past two weeks, I’ve met with a few students and some of my old youth group kids. In my office and at Starbucks, the conversation has invariably turned to politics; virtually to a man and woman, these young folks are Obama supporters.

I’ve been asking the same single question lately: “From your perspective, whose election — Clinton’s or Obama’s — would be more likely to send the message that anyone really can grow up to be president?”

My survey is not scientific. But virtually all of the young (and by young, I mean under 25) folks I’ve chatted with lately have answered “Obama”. It isn’t just the case that race trumps gender, even though more than half of the people I’ve chatted with are young women. It’s that to those too young to remember the first space shuttle explosion, Obama’s “narrative” seems more emblematic of American possibility than does Clinton’s. On Monday, I met with an eighteen year-old former youth-grouper of mine who just voted for Obama in the primary. This young white female said she had initially liked Ron Paul until she found out he was pro-life; a registered independent with liberal/libertarian leanings, she had become increasingly captivated by Barack. And though she might consider voting for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she’s thoroughly in the Obama camp for now. And yes, without prompting, she made the same remark that everyone else seems to be making: “If Obama can be president, then anyone can be president.”

Honestly, these conversations have made me feel old. Perhaps I’m still very much in the mindsight of second-wave feminism, even though I’m too young to remember that movement at its zenith. For me, in the end, nothing could be more revolutionary than electing a woman to the most powerful office in the country (and presumably, on earth). Hillary Clinton’s life narrative may not be as inspiring as Barack Obama’s, but when I look at Hillary (twenty years my senior), I see a familiar sort of figure: a woman who has spent her life working twice as hard to get half the credit she would receive were she a man. And though my affection for her is not rooted in her sex alone, I’m struck — as so many older feminists are struck — by the willingness of the young to see gender as entirely irrelevant.

My mother told me, when I was very young, that someday we would see a woman president. Like many of my generation and hers, I’ve believed that the moment we elect a woman as “leader of the free world” (a wince-inducing phrase, but there it is), we will have at last crossed the Rubicon of progress. In a world where women have, for so very long, been denied their full humanity, no single marker of change could be greater than to choose someone with ovaries and put her in the White House.* The USA is not the UK, or Israel, or India, or Argentina (all countries which have had women as heads of government). To the degree that I still buy into the seductive notion of American exceptionalism, I believe that there would be something uniquely revolutionary about choosing a woman as commander in chief.

As a child of five, I accompanied my mother to rallies for the late Shirley Chisholm, who ran for president in 1972. As a young man of 20, I wrote my first-ever political check to Pat Schroeder, the Colorado congresswoman who explored a run for the Democratic nomination in 1988. I’ve been waiting a long time, and others have been waiting much longer.

The young, it seems, are so confident that a woman will “someday” be president that they feel no sense of urgency to help “someday” be now. Whether or not that’s prorgress, I really don’t know.

* This is a feeling, folks, not necessarily a fact.

Ms. on Ward Connerly and affirmative action

The spring issue of Ms. Magazine will soon be available. One highlight of the upcoming issue will be a detailed and searing expose of Ward Connerly, the infamous anti-affirmative action crusader.

I haven’t blogged much about affirmative action here, though I have long supported it in both principle and action. In 1996, when Connerly succeeded in getting Proposition 209 on the California ballot, I was on the steering committee of the college’s campaign against the initiative. 209, which ended up passing by a fairly wide margin, struck a serious blow to outreach efforts across the Golden State. (Famously, the percentage of black and Latino students at UCLA and at Cal plummeted). Connerly repeated his California success in Michigan a decade later, with the “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.”

The Ms. expose focuses on several aspects of Connerly’s career and mission. For one thing, his anti-affirmative action work has made him a very rich man; Ms. reports that Connerly receives well over $1.6 million per year from the non-profit anti-affirmative action charities he controls. (Most of the funding comes from the construction industry, which profits enormously when Connerly’s propositions ban the “minority set-asides” that level the playing field in bidding for government contracts.) As Connerly (who is, of course, partly of African-American ancestry) continues his fight against affirmative action, he makes a very nice living.

The damage done to women (both white and non-white) by Connerly’s movement is deftly explored in the new Ms. Continue reading ‘Ms. on Ward Connerly and affirmative action’

“Lucky in her enemies”: why I can’t stop pulling for Hillary

As we head through another primary day, and the sense grows that Barack Obama is picking up unstoppable momentum, Melissa at Shakespeare’s Sister offers us a fine compendium of anti-Hillary articles. Melissa figured she’d be able to find twenty or so recent instances of misogynistic attacks on Senator Clinton; instead, she came up with 62.

I’m not the only person who’s gone back and forth between rooting for Hillary and rooting for Barack. Sure, as a registered Republican, I voted for McCain (as part of the quixotic effort to drag the GOP back to its centrist, moderate roots). And last year, I backed John Edwards. And literally daily, I vacillate between pulling for the junior senator from Illinois and the junior senator from New York. And one thing that keeps me leaning — ever so slightly — towards Hillary Clinton is my outrage at the venomous misogyny that is so regularly directed her way. Continue reading ‘“Lucky in her enemies”: why I can’t stop pulling for Hillary’

In praise of progressive Republicanism: celebrating the triumph of McCain

I spent a lot of time yesterday reading commentary about the Super Tuesday results, and admit that I spent most of that time focused on the Republican race, about which more in a moment.

On the Democratic side, I started supporting John Edwards last year and continued to support him until he dropped out of the race. His was the most consistently progressive voice of the three major candidates; I am pleased to see that the two candidates who remain have been influenced by his rhetoric, particularly on poverty issues. I wrote last month that all things being equal, I was slightly more inclined to Hillary Clinton than to Barack Obama. That’s more out of admiration for Hillary than dislike of Barack. I don’t accept the “suffering Olympics” model that posits either sexism or racism as worse than the other; the election of either a woman or a black man to the most powerful office on the globe would be equally revolutionary. What matters to me is simple: I want each candidate’s voters to pledge unequivocal support to the party’s nominee. If Clinton does end up with the nomination — and I give her about a 60% chance of doing so — Obama will need to urge his supporters, particularly the young ones, not to be disheartened. If he doesn’t get the nomination in 2008, the chances are excellent he will someday.

But of course, I changed my registration to Republican last year. It’s not that I am ideologically comfortable with today’s GOP. On virtually every major issue, the Democratic party is a better fit for me. But that’s less because I am particularly left-wing and more because the GOP has, since my childhood, moved farther and farther right. The GOP of my childhood included not just moderates, but genuine progressives, especially on environmental issues. The GOP was never just the party of the right; it was also the party of Pete McCloskey and Millicent Fenwick. Continue reading ‘In praise of progressive Republicanism: celebrating the triumph of McCain’

More election endorsements, and choosing Clinton over Obama

I’ll be leaving the country again on Wednesday, January 16. We won’t be back until February 6, the day after “tsunami Tuesday” and the California presidential primary. I am eagerly awaiting my absentee ballot, quietly confident it will arrive in the next couple of days. I haven’t missed voting in an election since I turned 18 in 1985, and don’t want to break that streak now.

A prediction:

I’m fairly confident that neither party will have decided its nominee by February 6. Even after so many huge states cast ballots on the 5th, no candidate will have clinched his or her party’s nomination. I suspect that for the Democrats, Obama and Clinton will still be neck-and-neck, with dear John Edwards — sadly — eliminated. For the GOP, there will still be four candidates with a shot at the nomination: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee. McCain and Huckabee will be in the best position, but look for Republican party elders (who not-so-quietly loathe both these mavericks) to do everything they can to help their favorite lad, Romney, put together a coalition that helps him win a brokered convention. Frankly, I’d love it if both parties had exciting conventions.

So, below the fold, my endorsements for the California primary. Continue reading ‘More election endorsements, and choosing Clinton over Obama’

Vote for someone named John: primary and caucus endorsements

Months ago, I predicted that the 2008 general election would be between Mitt Romney and John Edwards, anticipating a celebrated match-up between two talented, articulate, and strikingly good-looking candidates.

I’m not sure if my prediction will hold true, but on this eve of the Iowa caucus, let me be clear once more that I am endorsing John Edwards for the Democratic nomination. Of the top-tier candidates, he has the boldest and most progressive platform. His willingness to talk about the widening gap between rich and poor is refreshing; of all the major candidates, he promises to be the most aggressive in standing up for environmental and economic justice.

On the Republican side, it’s an easier call. John McCain is the class of the field. Unlike most of his fellow GOP candidates, McCain has not given in to the anti-immigrant xenophobia sweeping the party of the elephants. He is the only Republican to acknowledge the reality that global warming is largely a human-made phenomenon, and he has earned the enthusiastic endorsement of Republicans for Environmental Protection. Though far from being progressive in any real sense of the term, McCain’s willingness to buck right-wing orthodoxy and his commitment to the preservation of wild spaces earn him my vote.

Against “end of the year” retrospectives coming too early

Every morning, after my all-too-brief prayer time, I turn on CNN. This morning, when I saw the coverage of the Benazir Bhutto assassination, I watched for only a few minutes before going online. The American television news agencies have cut back so much on their coverage of world events that they no longer have the power they once did to bring multiple reporters on to a story instantly. I’ll still check in on the television throughout the day, but will stream BBC news on the radio and spend more time online, visiting my “usual sources”.

This is a tragedy, of course, but it’s another reminder as well that news-gathering organizations really ought to refrain from doing their “top stories of the year” in mid-December. When you look back over the past few years (the tsunami, the Hussein execution, this assassination), it’s evident lots of newsworthy events can happen after Christmas and before New Year’s Day.

GOP pundit: we want poor social conservatives, just as long as they know their place

Rich Lowry in today’s National Review Online, expressing the anxiety that the right-wing punditocracy has about Mike Huckabee, and the damage he’s doing to the conservative elite’s golden boy, Mitt Romney:

The GOP’s social conservatism inarguably has been an enormous benefit to the party throughout the past 30 years, winning over conservative Democrats and lower-income voters who otherwise might not find the Republican limited-government message appealing. That said, nominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can’t be the message in its entirety.

Bold emphasis mine.

Well, that’s more candor than I expect from GOP strategists: “we like poor uneducated social conservatives, but only as long as they know their place, which is to provide votes so we can do the important stuff.” It’s a bald admission of what the left has known for a long time: the GOP uses the “God, gays, and guns” issues to bring in voters whose economic needs are utterly incongruent with the Republican message.

Lowry continues:

Huckabee has declared that he doesn’t believe in evolution. Even if there are many people in America who agree with him, his position would play into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party. This would tend to push away independents and upper-income Republicans. In short, Huckabee would take a strength of the GOP and, through overplaying it, make it a weakness.

In other words: social conservatism, once you scratch the surface, is embarrassing.

Right-wing evangelicals are to the GOP what African-Americans have traditionally been to the Democrats: a group that is heavily courted come election time, but whose deepest concerns are routinely dismissed by the party elite. I’m an evangelical whose views on most issues are very different from Mike Huckabee’s. But on behalf of my “fellow believers”, I’m a bit stunned by the dismissive, patronizing tone Lowry strikes in his message.

Shorter Lowry: “Conservative evangelicals to the back of the bus, because you scare folks.”

In praise of cacophony: rejecting Romney’s “symphony of faith”

I left home for the office this morning just before Mitt Romney started his speech about faith. I couldn’t find it on the radio (I was a bit surprised that NPR didn’t pick it up, and I mean that seriously rather than facetiously), and couldn’t get it to stream online. So I’ll have to content myself, for now, with reading excerpts from the speech that the Romney campaign released in advance.

I’m an evangelical who has spent almost his entire life in the secular academy. There are few other serious Christians in my department; most of the colleagues to whom I am closest are firm atheists. Indeed, I note that more and more folks I run into these days seem willing to call themselves atheists rather than agnostics. There seems to be more openness about unbelief, and I appreciate that we live in a climate where those who are genuinely convinced that there is no God at all don’t feel pressured to use the safer language of uncertainty and doubt.

Romney said this morning:

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Mitt’s got it right when he suggests that it is unreasonable to ask anyone to divorce their spiritual convictions from their politics. The post immediately below this one is a brief polemic against compartmentalization, albeit a very different kind of compartmentalization. But to a serious believer, a Sunday morning (or Saturday morning) faith is poor beer indeed. If the relationship I have with God is the transcendent Fact of my life, it’s absurd to suggest that that Fact shouldn’t inform and guide everything I do — including how I teach and how I vote.

But the parallel to teaching is important. My faith makes me, I’m certain, a better teacher. That doesn’t mean that folks who don’t share my faith can’t be good teachers (better than I in many cases). It doesn’t mean that folks who have no faith at all can’t be wonderful instructors and mentors. It is simply true that in my case, my faith has made me an infinitely kinder, more patient, and less self-absorbed person. (Whatever notable tendencies I still have towards self-absorption, are, of course, attributable to the obvious reality that I, like all converts, am still very much a work in progress.) If someone asks me, “Hugo, why do you do what you do the way you do it?”, faith is going to be part of my answer. But the fact that my teaching rests on a spiritual foundation doesn’t mean that I am entitled to inject my spiritual beliefs into the classroom. If I can be a fairly religious person, and work day in and day out without talking incessantly about how my faith undergirds everything I’m doing, then I’m quite confident that others can do the same. That’s not compartmentalization, because I’m not living at odds with my faith or hiding my faith. I’m just choosing not to bludgeon folks with the cross. I’d like it if my fellow believers in public life felt the same way.

(And for the record, the notion of a “religion of secularism” is silly. But suppose someone did want to start such a religion, committed to the notion that the Divine Being is Absent, Never Was, and Never Will Be? The America I want is an America where that “religion” would be able to take its place in the public square too.)

But I’m particularly troubled by the (admittedly eloquent) concluding lines of Romney’s speech, sure to be remembered longest:

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Bold emphasis mine.

Yikes. I hit my knees a lot, Mitt, and I worship the same Almighty you do. I’m heartened to hear you will be my friend and ally. Tell me, will you also be a friend and ally to my mother, who does not believe in God? (For that matter, will you be a friend and ally to many of my Anabaptist friends, who believe in God but don’t kneel?)

And I wince at the notion that faith is a symphony. Symphonies, as we understand them, are innovations of the Christian west. The image that pops into my head is of the Catholics in the string section, the Baptists blowin’ their horns, the Eastern Orthodox on their woodwinds and the Pentecostals on percussion. Perhaps they’ll play “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” and it will sound very pretty. But will there be Muslims? Will there be atheists? Will there be Buddhists and Hindus? Will there be animists and Wiccans?

Real diversity is not harmonious. Real diversity is African and Japanese drums, the throbbing of synthesized beats, the rich, challenging melodies of an Indonesian gamelan — and French horns. Put that all together, and it isn’t going to be a beautiful symphony. It’ll be beautiful yes, but it will be the beauty of a great big messy cacophony, like what happens when you put plastic musical instruments into the hands of second-graders on a sugar high. And that great big messy cacophany is my America, Mitt. It’s the rancheras I hear blasting as I drive through Highland Park, it’s the hip-hop bumping from the car stereos as I walk on Crenshaw. It’s the ululating of Sephardic Jewish women at a Kabbalistic wedding, and it’s the speaking in tongues of Pentecostals at a late night prayer meetin’. It’s noisy and it’s difficult to understand and it doesn’t all fit together.

Religion has a place in the public square. But it doesn’t get to define the boundaries of the public square. Public displays of faith have their place, indeed — but so too do public displays of humanistic secularism. The right to pray as one chooses is inextricably linked to the equally important right to scoff at those who pray. Real ecumenism, real diversity, is not simply making the case for common ground between Mormons and evangelical Protestants, arguing that each has a part to play in the grand symphony of faith. A real commitment to diversity is embracing not only all believers, but embracing all those who are in varying states of unbelief. I say this as a Christian who loves Jesus, and I say it on behalf of those whom I love who share my convictions — and those whom I love who don’t.

UPDATE: I wish I could say that the way I originally spelled “cacophony” was deliberate. When dealing with Greek suffixes, I’m better on manifestations than sounds, so “phany” always “looks right” to me. I’ve changed it to the right spelling now.

Quick GOP debate thoughts

I was feeling a little drained last night, so I stayed on the couch and watched the Republican “Youtube” debate on CNN. Lots of other folks around the blogosphere were watching, and many will have deeper thoughts than I. What follows is pretty darned superficial:

In the general election, I will likely vote for any of the current Democratic candidates over any of the men who were on the stage last night. But in the primary, as a registered Republican, I’ve been leaning towards voting for John McCain. And last night’s debate — especially with McCain’s fierce rejection of waterboarding as torture — reminded me of what I’ve always admired about him. He’s not going to get the nomination, but despite his obvious anger problem, he’s probably the most worthy man in his party. And he has the endorsement of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group whose opinions I admire.

Huckabee was charming. His candidacy has the potential to widen the fissure that liberals very much want to see widened — that between fiscal and social conservatives. He’s never going to get the nomination, but he’s for real. If he pulls social cons away from Romney, that ends up helping Rudy.

As for Romney — are we really ready to have a president who is that handsome? I mean, forget the Mormon thing. I found myself studying Mitt’s face and hair last night, looking for flaws. It’s positively unnerving, and in “all half-seriousness”, I wonder if his “central casting looks” will end up hurting him in the general election. His appearance was genuinely distracting.

Fred Thompson was beyond hopeless. Great voice, but he looked bored, disengaged, and grumpy. And his suit jacket didn’t fit. Give the man a drink and send him home.