Saturday, February 9, 2008

Niebuhr and the 2008 campaign

I ran across a very interesting article on the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr upon US politics and politicians. Though it is several months old (Sept 2007), it directly discusses Niebuhr's influence upon the 3 presumptive frontrunners (McCain, Clinton, Obama; especially Obama).

This article is well worth looking into to get a sense of how this highly influential Protestant theologian conceived of the responsibility of engaging in the politics of the world--the very fallen world--in a way that deeply shapes all three frontrunners and their approach to social responsibility and public service.

(Remember that Yoder objects to Niebuhr's approach, but this might give you a little bit of the practical implications of Niebuhr.)

Friday, February 8, 2008

Abortion in this election

Whenever I think of the intersection between faith and politics, the pro-life movement is the first thing that comes to my mind. Sure, fiscal policy, defense policy, etc… all demonstrate this intersection, but the pro-life movement gets the most attention from faith-based advocates in American politics. However, what is interesting is that the movement seems to have become a secondary issue in this election. In all reality, only one candidate – Mike Huckabee – bases much of candidacy on abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research policies. So, why is it that the pro-life movement is and public debate on the specific understanding of the right to life seems to be losing its preeminence in US elections, especially when it is so foundational to democracy?

Though much of its fall off of the radar screen may be attributed to the rise of other issues in our society such as immigration, healthcare reform and the war in Iraq, I think the pro-life movement’s predominant strategy of “flooding” the Supreme Court has had negative impacts on the strength of the movement from a policy perspective. Because overturning Roe v. Wade is such a lofty goal, it seems that other more tangible and incremental issues have begun to absorb many pro-life advocacy efforts. This is seen particularly in an earlier post that demonstrated how evangelicals – one of the most active pro-life groups – have begun to see poverty issues as the most fundamental concerns in this election, not abortion. Perhaps one reason for this is that fighting poverty is multi-faceted. There are numerous fronts, and many battles to be fought – some incredibly large, others small enough for an individual to enact change. These movements seem to combine the transcendent cause with ability to see success on a practical level, and so, as a movement, they are quite appealing. They not only draw supporters, but also keep them active and engaged in the policy arena.

However, The pro-life movement has very little grass roots initiative other than the presidential election and thus Supreme Court nomination. There is really only one battle to fight from a policy perspective in the pro-life movement as it stands – overturning Roe v. Wade through “flooding” the Supreme Court. It is a movement that engages only a minority of its members past voting, leaving the majority almost floundering. Where ending poverty is about creating policy that permeates society to make poverty not an issue in America, the current abortion strategy seeks only to remove the possibility of an abortion. It needs to address the deeper societal questions. Within American society, abortion is an answer to many of what are seen as “problems” of pregnancy. Policy that addresses these motivations among citizens to get an abortion, would ultimately aid in creating a society that does not demand it. Initiatives such as universal childcare seek to address many of these issues of seeing pregnancy as an interruption in life. The pro-life movement is in dire need of a holistic approach. Reversing Roe v. Wade would not end the pursuit of abortions, as it is becoming more and more culturally conditioned as time goes by. But rather, this lofty goal, coupled with a policy strategy that seeks to right many of the injustices in society that lead to abortion being sought as an answer would be not only more beneficial for the society as a whole, but also more effective for the movement. Simply removing the option does not remove any of the injustices that lead to people seeking it; we need to create a just society if we ever wish to see abortion illegalized in the future.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

surprise party

As expected, Super Tuesday ended with a bang: it left us not only with questions about the weeks to come, but surprised by many of the results.

Constantly surrounded by young people enamored by Mr. Obama, I was surprised that the Democratic race wasn't even closer than it turned out, and I think many of us were surprised what a sweeping win McCain took-- we seem to be years away from the Iowa and I Heart Huckabee days.

But I think the biggest news for us right now is how much our votes here in the tiny state of Rhode Island have come to actually matter. It is a close enough race on the Democratic side that what each Rhode Islander checks off on the ballot will make a difference to this overall election year.

I read this article in the Projo online, "Rhode Island gains importance to Democrats" (by Scott MacKay and Mark Arsenault), after seeing it on the front page of the paper tonight. It discusses Clinton and Obama's work, as well as others', on trying to gain the attention of Rhode Islanders.

But why is this importance a surprise? Am I the only one who finds it frustrating that so many votes "don't make a difference anyway"? In our Democratic society, where we as Christians have the responsibility to stand up for the "preferential option for the poor" and for the lives of the unborn and the marginalized, why is it that our votes seem to mean so little? When I lived in Nebraska, no matter who I voted for, I knew the Republican candidate would win. Here in RI, I know it's going to be the Democrat. Thus, if I was interested in the less popular party, it would seem almost a waste of time to head to the voting booth.

Granted, if no one showed up to vote, this expectedness could no longer exist. But the question remains: how do we as "Democrats" (in the American sense of the word) make our vote count?

In our prayers. In our policies?

The campaign has dropped out of the news a bit for the last two days, in part so that candidates and the rest of us could take a breath after Tuesday. The bigger reason, though, is the news of the devastation in the path of those tornadoes down south. More than 50 people have died, and hundreds, thousands have lost homes, churches, businesses, schools.

This is a very, very personal issue for all of those folks. But it is also political, economic, and moral. Should aid come from charities and individuals who feel moved to help, or should there be federal aid given? How much? How should it be distributed? How will it best serve the common good? (And, remember, from a Catholic perspective, the common good refers to the good of all and the good of each, especially the poor and vulnerable.)

Lest you doubt that such things are political, recall the political ramifications for Bush given FEMA's slow response to Katrina. (And think of the local fallout over the failures with regard to the Dec 13th snowstorm.) FEMA seems to be doing much better so far. Perhaps lessons have been learned. I suspect we will soon be hearing candidates beginning their speeches with their hearts, thoughts, and prayers, going out to those affected. I wonder if we will hear more than good wishes.

Just as the bishops remind us that there is more to "faithful citizenship" than the casting of a vote, so too there is more politics in the news than what is being reported on the campaign trail. Sometimes the most interesting questions regard what the press and the candidates are NOT saying or doing. If the news seems to turn away from the campaign, let's keep following the news and asking hard questions anyway.

Money, Money, Money. Isn't it Funny??

Money! This is not such a strange issue to encounter in a presidential election. Especially with affordable healthcare, education, and housing coupled with the economic pressures and recession scares, it is no surprise that money is on the mind of so many individuals. However, once the attention of money changes from the issues we will vote on to the campaign funds of the candidates, then I begin to worry. 

Recently the Clinton campaign revealed that they injected thier campaign with $5 million of personal cash because they were falling behind Obama's total funding for January. The International Herald Tribune posted this article in response to the $5 million:


"Hillary Rodham Clinton lent her campaign $5 million late last month as Barack Obama raised more than she did and outspent her in the Democratic presidential race.
"The loan illustrates Senator Clinton's commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation," a Clinton
spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said Wednesday.

Obama, riding a wave of fund-raising both from large donors and small Internet contributors, collected $32 million in January. Clinton's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said the Clinton campaign had raised $13.5 million for the month. The $5 million was in addition to that amount, Wolfson said.

On Wednesday, the Clinton campaign set a goal of raising $3 million over the next three days through the Internet.

"We have had one of our best fund-raising efforts ever on the Web today, and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy," Wolfson said.
In a teleconference with reporters, the Clinton campaign's chief strategist, Mark Penn, said, "We will have funds to compete." But he added, "We're likely to be outspent again."
Hillary and Bill Clinton's financial disclosures, which reveal only broad ranges of assets, place their wealth between $10 million to $50 million.

The Clinton camp is counting on March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas and an April 22 primary in Pennsylvania. All three are expensive states in which to campaign."
I want to sincerely question a few concerns I have with campaign spending. First, I feel like a piece of merchandise to be bought with flashy signs and catchy commercials. These democrats keep talking about "change" and ushering in a new wave of politics for America. However, they are playing the same old campaign game. If you want me to believe that you are concerned about poverty and issues related to the homeless its going to be a hard sell as you spend potentially $100 million dollars of superficialities on signs and advertisements. 

I really feel that Americans who are voting responsibly are watching the debates and engaging in conversations over candidates. We don't want to be bought, we are choosing who will be the best leader for our country, not the individual with the best slogan or billboard. It disgusts me to think of what could be done with this campaign money. I would almost rather take all the money from every candidate, use it responsibly to fight the social ills of our society and put up with Bush for another 4 years!

I know these are completely unrealistic demands, but if each candidate made a promise to conservatively campaign and instead of vying for the greatest contributions, work to spend the least amount on a successful campaign, it would be a much greater deserved win. There is far to much emphasis on the amount of funds raised and not enough on educating the entire American population. 

There are many people in the US who will be unable to make an educated decision because of either choice, or lack of resources to do so. Therefore, our candidates are buying these people with their surface level slogans and unethical mudslinging. Its degrading to the dignity of each person to place a price on their vote. We need to create a greater option for the poor that reaches out to educate these individuals. It is an injustice to treat these people as though their vote is up for auction. This is a corrupt system that is grounded in greed. It places a question mark at the root of many candidates platforms.

The article also stated that the Clintons have a net-worth between $10-50 million dollars! I just cringe at this figure. When candidates are so passionately speaking about the poor and the unequal distribution of wealth, I'm wondering how quickly they would be willing to give up their money so someone else can pay their rent. We have all these candidates who want to work for the poor and bring these individuals justice and the rights they deserve. You cannot know the needs of the poor unless you have lived with them, in simple solidarity. Until you understand being poor for what it truly is, you cannot fully represent these needs. It doesn't matter how many soup kitchens you visit, or charities you start, if you live with $10 million as a minimum potential for all your assets, you cannot adequately represent the needs of those living in poverty.

This issue is so frustrating and hypocritical to what America should stand for. Our leaders need to represent the American people. They should not be swimming in money and buying votes. I don't want to be reading news about campaign funds and hearing that basically who ever has the most funds will win the nomination. That reduces my humanity to a dollar sign, and thats absolutely morally unacceptable. We are a Christian country, founded on Christian ideals and I fail to see any representation of Christ in any of this.

Monday, February 4, 2008

More on Kristof, and health care

I discovered a website this afternoon that is very helpful on health care. It is run by the American Medical Association and has their recommendations for solving the health care crisis and also has links to the plans of various candidates. For those of you trying to figure out more about this debate, it could be very useful.

Also, see Meg's entry below and take a look at Nicholas Kristof's column on liberal attitudes toward evangelicals. It offers a very interesting perspective on how religious folks are perceived in the political conversation sometimes.

Two things about this article make me uneasy. First, though it is nice to see that evangelicals like Rick Warren are getting interested in these social justice issues, I notice that their attention to these issues is rather international. Although I'm convinced that it is important to work toward the elimination of both AIDS and genocide in sub-Saharan Africa, I wonder what these folks are doing for the poor in New Orleans, or Camden, or Los Angeles, or whatever their nearest urban center is. I wonder if this focus is about mission, which likely cheapens it a bit. But I suspect (and fear, in fact), that this attention has as much to do with a sense that the folks in Africa are somehow "deserving poor" in ways that the folks in our inner cities, having failed to achieve the American dream we deem we've handed them on a silver platter, are not. I'm not convinced that this interest in global poverty will translate into votes for a Democratic president and his/her aggressive social services plan.

Meg asked a very interesting question, which actually brought about my second concern. She thinks that Kristof is suggesting that faith influences politics. And I think that she is right. My concern is that I don't think that he thinks that faith should influence our politics. I think that he tends to think that the problem with "crazy Christians" is that they think that their private, personal, invisible and non-prove-able faith, means that they should force their non-rational beliefs on good reasonable liberals who know that every person should decide these things for themselves. The great insight he's sharing about the new Jim Wallis group of social justice evangelicals is "hey, fellow-liberals, some of these crazy faith-based folks might actually be into the right issues, though of course for the wrong reasons, but let's not be biased against them. If we're liberals, we ought to be tolerant enough to accept anyone, right?"

Especially after reading his blog, this seems really about partnering on particular issues where secular liberals and Christian conservatives happen to agree or see some common ground. I'm actually somewhat hopeful for the partnering, but not very hopeful that true secularists are giving Christian faith any real purchase in the public square. Fortunately for us Christians, we have no obligation to wait for them to cede it to us. Remember that "separation of Church and State" is really a limitation on the government not to establish any national Church or to interfere in the operations of churches. Churches and their members have the same rights to engage in the political process as any other citizen or group of citizens.

A 180 for Evangelicals?

I found an article of interest this afternoon from NY Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof, called “Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love.”

Kristof highlights recent trends in evangelical voters noted by Jim Wallis in his new book, The Great Awakening. Specifically, evangelicals seem to be more focused on humanitarian and international issues these days than ever before.

Particularly interesting to me (especially in regard to my previous post) was this:
“A recent CBS News poll found that the single issue that white evangelicals most believed they should be involved in was fighting poverty. The traditional issue of abortion was a distant second, and genocide was third.”

Poverty, huh? I wonder if evangelicals are lamenting the surrender of Edwards.

I wandered onto Kristof’s blog to read some comments from NY Times readers. It seems that many of them took issue with Kristof’s piece. One commenter berated Kristof for legitimizing Christian groups’ international presence. This was based on this commenter’s accusation that Christian groups have underlying motives of evangelization (in the form of conversions to the Christian faith), rather than service and justice. This got me wondering…is it possible to invest one’s time and money in international AIDS work, or toward an end to genocide in Darfur and not simultaneously, by one’s actions, be preaching the Social Gospel? I’m reminded St. Francis of Assisi’s instruction: “Preach the Gospel. And, if necessary, use words.”

The article also took a few jabs at bleeding-heart liberals for their intolerance for the intolerable and at bleeding-heart conservatives for the self-righteousness of their leadership during the last 15 years or so. But his point was this: it should no longer be acceptable to scorn people for their faith, even if we disagree with their politics. Kristof’s final sentence states:
“We can disagree sharply with their politics, but to mock them underscores our own ignorance and prejudice.”

Can we also agree, then, that faith influences our politics? Kristof seems to say so, without saying so.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

the journey begins

The relationship between faith and politics, both in general and in the upcoming election, continues to amaze and surprise me. I was intrigued tonight (Thursday, 1/31) at the CNN Democratic debate when I heard Hilary compare the threats against people who help illegal immigrants to a threat against the Good Samaritan, or Jesus Christ himself. Unlike more conservative candidates, who actually seem to be on the defensive about the relationship between their religion and their politics, Hilary was not afraid to mention Jesus as a figure who not only deserves respect, but, perhaps, should serve as a model for us. One could argue that she did not go this far, but the fact that she used Jesus Christ as an example says something about this dichotomy between faith and politics, and how it will play out in these months to come.

As I mentioned in the first class, I find it difficult, at times, to reconcile these two points: my faith and my politics (or any interaction with the secular world). In a class discussion today, when I used the word “sinfulness” to explain myself, the teacher smiled and called me the theologian, perhaps discounting my comment as somehow less valid, as it was not a theology class. I found myself regretting the use of the word, because it somehow took away from the point I was trying to make, rather than highlighting a part of human nature, as I intended.


But this regret is ridiculous. Why should we, as devout Catholics, have to compartmentalize our lives in this way? We infuse our faith, and with that our moral judgment, into our everyday actions, unable to imagine a life that has not been shaped in this way. The reconciliation of this worldview with a completely “secular” mindset is difficult, to say the least, so the degree to which candidates can openly talk about their faith, address the clearly faith-related issues, and meanwhile respect the Constitution will be interesting to see.


Huckabee, who is beyond his Iowa days, became well-known as the “religious” candidate—and often this was an insult, something to be defended. In “God on the American campaign trail,” an editorial on newsday.com*, the writer comments on the candidates use of faith on the trail:


“Mike Huckabee, a Baptist preacher and former governor, raises eyebrows with the style and the symbolism of his Christmas-themed ad and his promise to amend the Constitution to bring it into conformity with God's laws. But he also makes good points about the care for the poor that permeates Scripture.”


Huckabee, according to this quotation, goes so far as to argue that God’s laws are the laws that America should be following, which, although I also would like America to be a Kingdom of God, seems to me to be contrary to the separation of church and state. Is this an extreme case?


The article continues, citing "Keeping Faith: Principles to Protect Religion on the Campaign Trail,” which says:


“Religion forms virtues vital to democratic citizenship. Religion calls citizens to transcend self-interest in service to others - to those in need, to neighbor, to community, to country and to the world. Religion promotes fundamental moral values necessary for civilized public life - honor and honesty, charity and justice.”


This hits my heart in all the right places; like so many others, I want to live a life formed in virtue and grounded in religion, and I want to live in a morally upright country that seeks constantly to serve. However, the real question is, and I don’t ask this rhetorically: Without the imposition of any religion on anybody else, of course, and keeping in mind all the suffering Americans experience, is this kind of country possible?



* Thanks, Meg, for sending us the link to Catholic information online!