We'll See

Parents are deep wells of wisdom.

That fact seems to usually go unrecognized until the children themselves are in the parent stage. I have found that even though I certainly gave lip service to my mother's wisdom, as I move down the slippery slope -- getting within spitting distance now of the AARP -- I see it more clearly.

As a child I would ask my Mom if we could do something in the future. "Can we go to Benson's Animal Farm this summer?"  "Can we go to the beach next week?"

Her inevitable answer would be "We'll see."

It was a source of great frustration for me. Yes or no. "We'll see" just did not cut it.

Now I watch the check and balance action going back and forth between Congress, Senate and the Executive Branch of the federal government. Competing theories of what needs doing and how to do it -- mow it all down or just a little pruning here and there. Competing theories of what will happen -- total apocalypse or a slight bump in the road.

And no news outlet seems to be able to actually explain the issues. They are great on the play by play, (Boehner jabs, he weaves, Obama with a right cross, and OH! Boehner lands a solid blow to the kidneys. Obama shakes it off...) but no one seem to be able to clarify the issues at hand.

So...I find myself, like my Mom, just watching it all and saying..."Well -- we'll see."

Wisdom. I see it now.

vote. don't vote. whatever.

I posted my facebook status today thusly:

vote. don't vote. whatever.

A scandalous sentiment. I was indeed scolded by one of my FB friends, an acquaintance from elementary school who reminded me that our mothers pounded it into us to VOTE. My mother didn't pound much of anything, but I would say that she would certainly look a bit more than askance at anyone suggesting that it is OK not to vote.

I believe in engagement. I am not by any means a separatist (and the LORD said 'come on out from among them and be ye separate...) of any kind. Voting is certainly one way to engage in the life of the world we live in. It is a unique form of engagement, and a custom highly developed here in the United States.

I balk, however, when voting is considered a "sacred" duty. Although that term may not be actually used, it is the default setting for most who prize the blessing of democracy. The term may not always be used per se, but it is thought of in just this manner -- a duty that is sacred. To refuse a sacred duty is blasphemous, an outrage against God. I reckon it all depends who your god is.

This is ironic, especially when coming from some who, believing in no god, or claiming to be unsure about the nature of a god that may or may not be, yet still think that the very idea of anything being 'sacred' could have any meaning for them. Even more ironic, however, that those who, clinging firmly to a faith in a Very Particular God, would not stop to think HOW exactly would voting be sacred. If it is, it is likely not for the reasons they are thinking.

For instance, I don't believe you will find anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus encourages us to go to the polls. Nor to stay away. Democracy was simply not a category in which Jews in 1st century Palestine dealt, and Jesus was no different.

Perhaps the closest he comes is when he says to give Caesar that which belongs to Caesar -- but that's taxes. What happens when we ARE Caesar -- or our job is to vote on Caesar?

So how should we think of voting? I refer you to Jared Wilson's blog post on Voting like you are not voting.

Tribal Weather, Man

Politics and government are expressions of culture. This is as true of politics as of any other sphere of human life including, but not limited to religious practice, war-making, law, science and it’s close cousin philosophy, economics and business, architecture, and all forms of art and craft.

As such, I am not especially interested in commenting on a given days political events. I usually merely observe and note my own thoughts to myself. I am much more interested, however, in noting prevailing currents, winds of change, forecasts of upcoming societal weather which can be discerned in the higher clouds of the cultural skies.

My friend Assistant Village Idiot has long been using the concept of Tribes as a model for understanding the cultural weather. He recently posted a link to a very insightful essay in the American Spectator on the nature of today’s “ruling class” along with some excellent commentary – with more of his own commentary to come.

The language in the American Spectator article is the language of "class," as opposed to AVI's use of the term "Tribe." They are both talking about the same idea. I think "Tribe" is the better term here, but the way Dr. Codevilla describes it in his essay is thorough and revealing and well worth the read.

Go to AVI's blog and also look at his writing in his Tribes Collection.

If Bob Dylan was right that “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” I would say you might need a bigger weather map to see what’s coming down the jet stream.

Paglia on Pelosi. Holy Hygeia!!

Taking a brief break from burning logs to mention this column on Salon.com regarding the pending bill on national health care (among other topics). The column is written by Camille Paglia. Yes, that Camille Paglia, the she wolf herself.

She is well known for her lefty liberal stances on...well...just about everything, but at least she serves them up with real style and thoughtfulness. Surprisingly, in this column entry, she offers a harsh, if not overly detailed, criticism of the bill that many of her liberalistic colleagues are having orgasms over. It sounds like Camille has a headache and would just rather do something else.

Read it here.

There's Reform, and Then There's REFORM!

I've tried to write about this several times, but the whole expanse of it just seems to get away from me. Rather than write a full and reasoned treatise, here are just a few observations.

I think that the whole idea of Health Insurance may be completely wrong. Insurance is for disasters, not for bills. With life insurance, the payout is at least predictable based on the policy your purchase, so the actuaries can figure out the pricing accordingly. Medical bills are notoriously unpredictable, so huge margins must be built in.

• Imagine sending the bill for your brake work or your oil changes to your auto insurance company. That's not what insurance is for. Insurance is for crashes. Repair insurance is available, but we call it an extended warranty. Most financial advisors will tell you it's a bad deal. Insurance is for crashes. For repairs, you plan, save or use your credit card.
  
  
• Health insurance makes the insurance company the customer, not the patient. The money comes from the insurance company, so the medical provider is much more interested in doing things that make the insurance companies happy. This has to skew things.
  
  
• Making the government the insurer really won't help this. It doesn't matter if the government does a good job of it or not. The concept is skewed from the get go.

So it seems to me that Health Care reform -- real reform -- is not about deciding who insures who. It should be about getting rid of insurance altogether and finding other ways to finance medical expenses.

This isn't all my idea. I was kind of thinking about this, but in a very fuzzy and undefined way, and then I read David Goldhill's article in The Atlantic Monthly called How American Health Care Killed My Father. Not sure I see all his solutions, but I think they are much closer to real reform than what is going on now.

Sense and Nonsense in Policy Making

The right rages and rants on the healthcare hobbiehorse, but it's not helping me much. They are busy blowing buzzwords out their betooshkas. I haven't dug in deep to the data. I am working too hard just to keep my head above water. But here is what I hear, out of the corner of my ear, and I don't like it much.

Socialized medicine

This is apparently the horror of all horrors. Unfortunately it is rather bloblike, with a clearly undefined shape. No one seems to want to explain what they mean by it, or why it is bad. It is socialist, though. That seems to be enough. But...are the proposals on the table REALLY socialized medicine? No one seems to be able to tell me.

Health Care will be Rationed

OK, it is rationed now. My insurance company has some strong opinions about what they will use my premiums for and what they won't. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. That is how insurance works. But why shout as if everyone has indiscriminate access to medicine now? It ain't so. Should it be so? Maybe. Maybe not. That's a different question.

Bureaucrats will make your healthcare choices for you

Again, they already do. It's just that they are paid by the insurance companies, not by the government. And again, I'm not saying that's bad, but you can't talk like there aren't hundreds of thousands of pasty faced cubicle dwellers checking off forms to determine what procedure they will or won't pay for right now.

Government ruins everything it touches

Could the gummint be more efficient? Sure. Could the gummint be more effective? Sure. Is there a tremendous amount of waste, boondoggle, porkbarrel and earmarking? Absolutely. But seriously, if we had anarchy -- no government at all -- do you really think that life would be better? Like the Israelites shouting for a king, all human societies must organize somehow. Tribes or Kingdoms or Nations -- every society forms some kind of government. Ours is actually pretty sophisticated and just compared to what history has served up. Without the government we have - flawed as it is - we would not be enjoying the freedom and prosperity we enjoy today. Sure, keep governmnet in check. That's wise. But don't go around blathering about how government is by nature the greatest evil, and must never be trusted with the public welfare in any form. That's just ignorant manure coming right out of your mouth.

Healthcare Reform will Balloon the Budget

I think it already is. So we can't just sit still. This is not to say that would should adopt something that would be financially disastrous in the long run just because it is politically expedient now. Nevertheless wouldn't it be better to do SOMETHING about it, even if it is less than perfect? Obstructionism is not going to get the budget under control.

So I don't want to know what horrible apocalyptic fate will befall us if we actually do the tiniest smidgen of what Mr. Obama has in mind. Don't rail prophetically about the awful desolation that will be post-healthcare reform America. Tell me how YOU would fix it. Present private sector solutions that will work. Give us counter proposals. The antithesis to the thesis of a proposed bill is not to scream hysterically at the congressman. The antithesis is to present your own bill, with different solutions. Then lets pick something that looks like it might actually solve some of the problems, get it passed, and move on.

Stop bloviating. Start renovating. Give me fewer bumperstickers and better ideas. Stop throwing those sticks and stone. Let's use them to build us something useful.

Everything You Know is Wrong

Stewart Brand sets out some new ideas to me in this video.



1) Cities are good. The growth of mega-cities and urbanization of our world may be a net positive. What we see as slums and cesspools of human castoffs are actually hugely energetic engines of human social growth and advancement. Sure they are messy, but they are fermenting capitalism and upward mobility from a ground level -- and fermentation always smells a little funky. The migration to urban centers also reduces birthrates, and allows rural areas to recover from the ravages of subsistence farming. These are new perspectives I had not considered. Pay special attention to his video of the train.

2) Nukes are good. Energy by nuke is the new green option - no carbon footprint, and with new technology, very little nuke waste for the energy released. Safe and quiet. I had thought this for some time, especially with the advent of micro reactors and distributed grids. I want one.

3) GMC's are also good. He makes a case here, but it is slight and needs development. He completely ignores the counter arguments, some of the most powerful have more to do with the way the owners of the technology are marketing and licensing the technology, rather than the crops themselves. I am not convinced that GMC's are the unmitigated evil that seems to be the prevailing wisdom, and I remain equally unconvinced that they are an umitigated blessing.

4) What the heck is geo engineering? Is he serious?

Just Five Smooth Stones

New Yorker recently published an article called "How David Beats Goliath." I have been thinking about it a lot since I first came across it thanks to 10-4 Good Buddy.

The basic thesis is simple. The only way that a smaller, slower, weaker team/person/nation/army can beat a larger, stronger opponent is to redefine the rules of the game. The smaller entity must refuse to play by the rules of the larger, and instead play only the game that maximizes whatever advantages they have, but downplays or minimizes their weaknesses. The article mostly uses a basketball analogy, but shows some applications to other spheres as well.

This is one reason this article so captivated me. It strikes me as one of those observations that holds so much truth on so many levels that it bears real study. Of course, the most obvious application is at a national level where we are having to learn quickly to adapt our goliath nature to use davidian tactics. One of the most remarkable things about today's U.S. Military is that they actually are beginning to learn how to use Davidian tactics, even though they are goliath. Can they learn them fast enough and apply them consistantly enough? Or are we doomed as goliath to always be at the mercy of little people with slingshots?

There is a tendency to be angry at the terrorist for not playing fair. I think we can be angry at them for attacking us. We can be angry at them for being wrong, and wrongheaded. We can be angry at them because they have sworn to be our enemies. But we can't blame them for adopting the tactics they use. There are no other tactics open to them. They simply cannot defeat us in open direct battle. They HAVE TO use guerilla tactics. They have to refuse to play by our rules. Recognizing that, then we need to refuse to play by theirs. Meaning we need to be better at their game than they are. I'm thinking mostly of the situation in Iraq here, possibly also Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not so much terrorist attacks here in the U.S.

Cheney and his gang, seem to think this means we should terrorize the terrorists. That is why we can't refuse to use torture techniques. I have read some persuasive arguments along these lines. Even so, I think that that may be falling into the trap of playing their game of their strengths. They are good at creating chaos, dividing allies, sowing fear. It is cheap, direct and hard to stop.

Unless...we play the game by our strengths. We have resources and expertise. Rather than attacking the terrorists, perhaps we should place more of our resources and energy into protecting -- and thereby winning the hearts of -- the people. Repair the grid. Provide clean water. Help with food, clothing, cooking fuel, heat. At the same time, use military force to stop bombs and attacks. Make the streets safe. Rather than attempt to instill terror in the hearts of the people, we should be protecting and providing for them to win over the hearts of the people.

As the articles suggests, this is a hard hard strategy. Like the full court press, it involves a great deal of physical commitment and dogged determination and real stamina. But it has the advantage of effectively undercutting the terrorist agenda. Far from being soft and squishy, it is actually a seriously hardnosed approach.

Beyond the national political and military implications, I also love this article for the personal implications. Davidism as a way of dealing with personal problems. Refuse to play the game given you. Instead, redefine the game to your own strengths. I'm working on this.

National Dyspepsia and Me

I’ve been thinking much lately of the national discussion shaping up around national health care programs (or not). It’s been fascinating for me to watch my own thinking, as limited and clumsy as it is, developing on that topic. I have always listed myself as Independent (in New Hampshire, this is my actual registered "party" affliation) while definitely leaning toward the conservative republicanish column. I am finding such labels less and less useful. To be honest, my current political position seems to mesh liberal amounts of libertarian gush with sizable piles of communitarian hoohah, a few globs of personal pork, and good dash of wwjd philosophy. That odd blend tends to create a certain degree of dyspepsia. When I apply it to the healthcare debate, I find myself in places I never thought I would.

Republican objections that I have heard seem more knee-jerk than thoughtful and substantive. Hysterics about bureaucrats taking away your ability to decide about your health care when such decisions should be “left up to you and your doctor” just strike a false note with me coming from these corners. You can’t accuse the Democrats of using that as a smoke screen to push through abortion legislation, and then use it as your own smokescreen. And the warnings about “rationing” are a bruised reed. Healthcare is already rationed, just not in a rational way. It is rationed by chance and circumstance. In the aggregate, you might barely be able to argue that it works, but if you look at the direction of the aggregate is actually going now, indications seem to be that it is not working.

It could be that I listen to NPR way too much. I’m hearing words like “unsustainable” and “untenable.” These could also be hysterics, but the seem right to me. This may be in part because my own view is skewed heavily by my own currently unsustainable and untenable economic condition – and the economics of my personal and family healthcare are a big part of that. I am paying easily 20-40% of my monthly income (my monthly income varies) toward just my insurance. This does not include actually paying for any actual healthcare we receive. Needless to say, I don’t go to the dentist very often.

The argument I hear most speaking against some form of consistent national health plan is that it is not the responsibility of government to provide such a service. I can see that argument. The constitution clearly delineates the role of the federal government and that of the states. Providing an army for the national defense is in there. Providing health care is not. And yet I think this may be placing the emphasis on the wrong principle. A national health care plan is not forbidden by the constitution. Such a need could not have been envisioned by the founding fathers to either forbid or recommend. We have to find our own way.

Let’s stipulate for a second that providing health care is not rightfully a responsibility of government. So then, whose is it? Right now it falls to business. But why does it make any more sense, on principle, for business to be saddled with that responsibility. It is the job of business to provide value for customers through products and services, and value to shareholders through profits, and value to employees through pay for services rendered. Who says this OUGHT to rightfully include health care? What does Acme Plumbing know about health insurance? What does Atomic Widgets know about managed care? There is a strong argument to be made that business should be freed from this additional burden so that our economy can grow.

Oh…but if government takes over managing healthcare then we are “letting employers walk away from their responsibility.” First, I would dispute that is really their responsibility. Second, they are already walking away from it by cutting their own costs, reducing benefits, pushing premiums onto the individual. That is the irrational rationing I spoke of earlier.

Will it be expensive? Oh, certainly. But what costs are we bearing now that are not accounted for? And wouldn’t a healthy population become part of our common wealth. We invest in roads and sewers because we all benefit. Such infrastructure helps us to conduct our lives, exercise out liberty and pursue all that happiness. If providing more consistent and rational healthcare coverage would move us in that direction, I think I’d be for it.

I also think that it is possible to design a system that could do that. It won’t be perfect, but I think it can be done. We’ll see. 

A Democracy of Neighbors

These last two Saturdays were taken up by the physical and personal practice of democratic governance in what be it’s most fundamental and direct form – the New England town meeting. Last week, my town, Barnstead NH, held it’s annual meeting. The list of warrant articles was much shorter than in past years. The biggest items put before the people were hiring another full time police officer ($70,000 added to the budget), $100,000 for a emergency expenses fund for dealing with natural emergencies, and the budget itself.  Smaller items included the approval of the transferal of deeds for certain properties purchased through a tax sale, requests for the town to assume the maintenance and upgrade of certain private roads, and so on. In the end the police officer was voted down, the emergency fund was amended to $25K and then to $80K, the roads will stay private and the budget was passed at $3 million and some change. Discussion was often lively and direct, but never out of line (although the line is a pretty fluid concept in some town meetings) and Robert’s rules were put to good work keeping things straight and in good order. We started at 9:00 and were done by 1:00 in the afternoon.

Today was the meeting for the School Board. The budget was the single biggest item, with a new teacher contract coming in close to that. Our teachers have worked without a contract for a year,  after the first negotiated contract was turned down at last year’s meeting as being to rich. This year’s contract was more modest and was accepted with a good margin. The budget discussion was also interesting, with an amendment from the floor proposing to strip $100,000 from the superintendents operating budget in order to force him to become a lobbyist to obtain money from the state and federal governments promised us to fund mandates placed upon our local school systems. Although the amendment would likely not have achieved it’s desired ends if passed, it was more of a political statement anyways. The good people of the town got the statement, and having heard the message voted it down soundly before passing the budget as proposed. 13 articles were disposed of by noon.

The school board meeting was noteworthy in that the school budget is easily 3-4 times the town budget, but usually gets a smaller attendance. Not this time. The school board meeting was packed.

I love these meetings for a few reasons. Our nation’s founders fought for, among other things, the right for representation before taxation. What I was privileged to take part in today was almost precisely the converse of having taxes levied by a king over the sea, or even a legislature boxed up in never never land. It was we, the people, discussing what we need to do in order to maintain a civil and effective society and voting to tax ourselves to create what we want. Or, in many cases, voting to NOT tax ourselves. And then we must live with our own decisions, for good or for ill. A theme you will come up against again and again in the essays of Wendell Berry is that local control is the only type of control that is really safe and healthy in the long run. The example that comes to mind is of the shift in ownership that has taken place in recent decades of the great north woods of Maine, NH, VT, and NY. Especially in Maine, the great lumber mills were once owned by local people. They were indeed wealthy and powerful owners of enormous tracts of land, but they lived in the same region as their holdings, and employed people who were essentially their neighbors. Now, most of those holding have been transferred to multinational conglomerates who have no care for the the people, no concern for the land, but know it only as numbers on a spreadsheet that must be made to add up a certain way. Because they do not have to LIVE WITH their decisions, they make decisions without much concern for the human implications of those decisions. This is, perhaps a transferable principle to government as well. It is easy to for someone in Washington DC, or in Concord for that matter, to pass a law mandating this or that. They may or may not fund the mandate, but it doesn't matter because then the mandate becomes the problem of the local people. On the other hand, every decision we make at town meeting carries the very clear awareness that it affects not only me, but my neighbors -- the people I see, and whose home I drive by every day. The people whose kids play with my kids. And when I say this awareness is clear, I mean it. It is a topic that is brought up in every discussion at the town meeting -- "this is going to be tough for the folks whose taxes are going to go up." We hear it over and over again. I suspect that even though we are amateurs, this sort of communal awareness causes us to make, on the whole, pretty reasonable decisions.

There are downsides to a local town based government run along these lines, and probably good reasons why you don’t find it anywhere BUT New England. But I gotta tell you, I really like it. I suspect that if more places ran themselves along these lines, we might be much better off as a nation. 

Bad Bank

Here is the next installment on economics from the radio program This American Life by NPR. This episode is titled Bad Bank. You may want to take a sedative before listening to this, but by all means, listen. It will clarify much. You can click here to go to the website. Click on the icon for the "Full Episode" to stream it for free. It is about an hour long, so get some tea or coffee, maybe a little snack and plan to settle in for a while.

The most important part comes toward the end where they discuss who is REALLY to blame for this whole fiasco. Their conclusion is consonant with my thinking all along.

Chicago Stains

There is something perversely fun about writing something that requires a disclaimer right from the very beginning. So, in the spirit of good clean fun, let me just begin by stating clearly and unequivocally that I do not believe President Barack Obama is now, or ever has been Jesus Christ, or even a good stand-in for him. Keep that in mind as you read the next paragraphs or you will entirely miss the point of what I am writing.

I have detected a theme in comments, conversations and remarks among a number of my acquaintances and friends when speaking of Mr. Obama. Below are some made up examples of the kind of statements I have heard.

He’s from Chicago you know. They play hardball there and that’s where he learned his politics.

What do you expect? He’s from Chicago.

Those Chicago boys sure know how to play the game. You can’t trust ‘em. They’ll do whatever it takes to get the votes and Obama held his own there.

Whenever I hear that sort of thing, I just can’t help thinking of a similar platitude uttered years and years ago in another corner of the world. People would listen to Jesus preach and be fascinated, but when they heard where he was from, they would utter “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

I have heard many a preacher and Bible teacher remark on the prejudice and foolishness of that remark. And I think we would all agree that the sentiment is short sighted to say the least. But let’s reframe it, shall we?

“Can anything good come out of Chicago?”

You may say yes. You may say no. We shall see, shan't we?

Mr. Obama's Inaugural Address

I must say that I am immensely pleased to see that the art of high oratory still lives. Mr. Obama’s words, spoken before millions in his Inaugural Address, were inspiring, thoughtfully conceived, powerfully delivered and altogether stirring to the heart. I felt both uplifted and challenged by his address, grimly clear on the work that lies ahead, yet brave and ready to do my part to take it on. The best thing is that this was not a merely political speech. It rose to the level of civic oratory – words for the people, to the people, to give us heart when our hearts are wavering.

I can imagine that there are cynics who will pooh-pooh the use of high-falutin’ language and fancy buzzwords. They will sit back, with arms crossed and lips curled, and say, “We’ll see. Just watch. He has yet to prove himself.” I would say that the proving has begun. It is by no means complete, but it has begun. So to remain cold and dispassionate, to look down your nose at words like those he spoke today is to remain a cynic to spite your own nose. 

One might think that he is using them self-servingly, for that is what politicians do. Yet even if that were true, that does not mean that we need to receive them that way. The ideas upon which Mr. Obama drew for his first speech as President were so grounded in our founding documents, so woven into the thought fabric of the American experience, so fundamental to our unique culture, that if you choose to stand apart from them you risk appearing to turn your back on the best our country stands for. It does not matter to which party you belong. As Americans we share The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the legacies of many great men and women who worked and lived and served and lead us over many many years. This address was in the best traditions of all those. So whatever you think of the man, his words, his call to us, was deeper and broader than himself and calls us to look beyond him to the native and bedrock truth of those words themselves. 

Now the real work begins (well, after all the dancing and drinking anyways). I once doubted his capacity to lead. Knowing human nature as I do, I will always reserve a portion of that doubt for no man can live up to even his own highest expectation of himself, never mind an entire nation's hopes. Nevertheless my sincere prayer is that Mr. Obama will continue to prove himself. That he will indeed become the lens through which the American people will focus our energies to light the future, the fulcrum that will help us to raise ourselves out of these dark times together. It is a high calling we have called him to, and he has echoed it back to us. Let us respond with all the strength of heart and hand and brain, together.

God Bless America.

Read the full transcript of Barak Obama's Inaugural Address here.

Two Sides of a Coin

I’ve learned that it takes a lot to get me exercised about politics. Mostly, I just like to sit on the outside and watch other people jump up and down and get all histrionic. I’m not above throwing a comment or question in just to instigate more fireworks. I’m really more of a spectator, although I do enjoy a good show.

Other people find certainty much easier to come by. I am simply not convinced that Obama is going to turn the U.S. into a socialist state all by himself. I’m pretty sure that we won’t all be muslims by 2012. I doubt that some kind of government sponsored health care plan will be a complete and utter disaster for our nation -- and I suspect that a good one might actually help.

Although I love to listen to Mr. Obama speak, and I am a sucker for powerful oratory and poetic, majestic themes, I don’t mistake those for the day to day grind of running a government, and I simply am waiting to see how he manages that.

On the other hand, although I voted for McCain, I was not convinced that his plans to lower taxes, offer health care rebates, and appoint “conservative” justices would usher in the New Jerusalem either. Nor would he launch the country into a tyrannical police state.

The peculiar thing is that although the President wields tremendous influence on the shape of future events, that manner in which their actions actually shape those events is much more difficult to predict. It must be a corollary to Murphy’s Law that if any unintended consequences to a decision, regulation, or law is possible, it will almost certainly come to pass. I suspect that in the long run, most consequences are unintended, most blessing unlooked for and most disaster will take us by surprise.

GWB certainly was a man of decision. He was very clear in his own mind. His world is a very simple place, a matter of black and white, yes and no. No compromise, and no wavering. This was his great strength, and turned out to be his downfall. It is common for a man’s weakness to be the obverse of his greatest strength -- 2 sides of a coin. I can only imagine how surprised he has been by the consequences of his actions. I don’t think this has turned out at all the way he expected.

So now we will get to see what Obama’s greatest strengths are, and in time how they also reveal his great weaknesses. When 4 years (or eight) are past, we will see whether it all played out as Mr. Obama expected…and all his supporters as well.

Personally, I hope it all works out great, and all the most noble visions of Mr. Obama come to pass. We’ll see how noble are the outcomes the grow from his ideals.

Purists, Coalitions and Tin-Foil Hats

This is just too good not to share. Still along the theme of voting/not voting/third party voting, etc. 

When told that he is throwing his vote away, the third party purist often says that he wants to take theprincipled approach instead of the pragmatic one. But pragmatism always needs to build coalitions in order to get something done (and that something can be much smaller than winning the election), and so this coalition building is not something that disappears when you leave the mainstream parties. I left the Republican Party many years ago because I didn't like a lot of the company -- suits, haircuts, PR-meisters, pollsters, liars, liberals, charlatans, and clowns. Great . . . that's a good reason to leave. But in the world of third parties, you soon discover, if you have kept your wits about you have haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, that . . . you don't like a lot of the company. In the third-party world, pragmatism places certain people in charge of state organizations who couldn't organize a two-car funeral. On top of that, you have your racialists, your whackos, your tin-foil hat people, and your conspiracy nuts. Now of course, the fact one is paranoid doesn't mean that "they" are not after him, but still, there it is. Just because you have separated yourself from the corruption does not necessarily mean that you have become a noble member of the Council of Elrond. But mixed all through this you have intelligent people who really love God and their nation, and who really understand how corrupt the mainline parties are. Just like back in the Republican party -- there are people there who understand all this as well. We are all in the hands of God, and so those who see the crisis accurately should strike hands gladly, regardless of how we believe God would have us respond to it in the polling booth. I exclude from this broad call for political charity anyone who votes for Obama, or who would secretly like to in his heart. Every Christian who votes for Obama is part of the problem. Most Christians who vote for McCain are part of the problem. And most Christians who vote for the "pure" third part candidate are part of the problem also. But there is no reason for despair. Every Christian who gathers on the Lord's Day to worship the Father in the name of Jesus, in the power of the Spirit, in order to renew covenant with Him, is part of the coming inevitable restoration.

Borrowed from Doug Wilson at Blog and Mablog. Read the entire post here. This is the best of it, but it's still worth reading it all.

Two Differing Opinions

Giving the recent lively exchange between myself and my good friend Ron (I do not mean that ironically – he is a good friend. If he was not, I would not have been willing to utilize quite the level of rhetoric that I did) I thought it might be useful to publish a few comments I ran across at Imonk.com. The post is titled Election Day 2008: Wine and Sheesh Party. In it, Imonk explains his discontent with McCain and his aversion to Obama. Way down the comments, I came across a very well reasoned explanation by a commentor named Kirk on why he thinks not voting is a manly-- and more importantly, a christian -- option.

I’d like to suggest that not voting is very much an option. And not just because there isn’t a candidate you are happy about. The Bible never addressed appropriate Christian responsibilities in a republic, but Jesus did say not to lord it over other people like the Gentiles do. He was offered the kingdoms of the world and he turned them down. He subverted political systems with something better and more powerful–the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.

Since God is our king, perhaps it would make sense to confine our methodology for effecting change to reliance on his power and his Spirit. I don’t trust princes or horses or chariots anyway. Shouldn’t we believe that God in his church can do more than any human being to bless this world, bring peace and care for the poor?

I’m nearer every day to deciding that I don’t want to be invested in this system at all. I don’t want worldly power, even the fairly minimal power of casting a ballot. I don’t want to be deluded into thinking that I’ve made a difference by checking a box besides someone’s name. I don’t want to be tempted to start believing that if we get just the right person into office, that suddenly it will make a difference.

A humble book recommendation: I would love to see your response to “Electing Not to Vote: Christian Reflections on Reasons for Not Voting,” edited by Ted Lewis. You might find it persuasive.

Rich Mullins once said something like “Democracy is the belief that a million people are less corrupt than one. That’s not bad theology; it’s bad math.”

In this case, he is not  talking about not voting in THIS election, but about not voting ever...on principle. Of course, this puts him in very good company with millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses who practice an assiduous neutrality regarding this “world system.” I can respect this approach, but I do not agree with it. It at least has a consistency that is lacking for someone who is simply fed up with this election, or who doesn't care for the current names on the ballot.

On the other hand, Michael Spencer, the Imonk himself, followed up with this comment.

I believe that not voting is a violation of the stewardship we have received as citizens of this country. It is in effect saying we don’t believe God has a common grace will or that there are any moral issues at stake. Render unto Caesar, and my fellow Americans have purchased my participation in this process with their blood. I am not a non-citizen. I am a citizen of two Kingdoms.

This is closer to my sentiment. I'm not sure that voting has the same weight as paying taxes, but at a moral level, I'm not sure it doesn't. If Jesus hadn't done his little trick with the coin in the fish's mouth, and then said his thing about rendering unto Caesar, would JW's abstain from paying taxes as a matter of neutrality? It's merely hypothetical of course -- Jesus said nary a word about voting.  

Personally, I’m still going to vote, but I will almost certainly walk out of the polling place praying, “God have mercy on us all.”

 

 

 

 

Obama Skills Assessment

Another post on politics. Tis the season I guess.

James Fallows does a nice job of summarizing what we have seen from Barak Obama in terms of his skills. These relate to my choice matrix somewhat. The notes that we have yet to see how this would actually play out in office. 

I will add that I have been quite impressed by Obama's organizational skills, as demonstrated by his campaign. I think we can say that he has passed the test on the question of whether he can organize a large nationwide undertaking involving thousands of people. 

When my wife and I first met, we had the usual college student conversation about "what's your major." When I expressed that my major is communication, she gave me this stinky cheese face, rolled her eyes, and said, "What do you do with that?" I responded, "Well, we're communicating right now, aren't we?" And she said (without missing a beat), "Yes...but I didn't need to go to school for four years to learn how to do it." 

All this to say that all we don't hear too much sniggering about the job description for "community organizer" now, do we?

Choice Matrix

I’ve been trying to figure out a way to codify and quantify my decision making process regarding my vote for POTUS. Being President seems to require a complex matrix of skills, temperament, philosophy and habits. I’ve tried to lump these qualities into set of meta-qualities, and then assign each a value weight. Then I evaluate the candidate, and give each a score for each meta-quality that ranges from 1 to 10.

This takes into account such fuzzy things as speaking ability, or appearing presidential, and even weighs tougher questions like can he get legislation passed.

Here are the meta-quality groupings I devised.

Personal Style – This encompasses speaking style, appearance, communication skill, energy level, posture and so on. All those things that go into making people like you, or not like you. They are not terribly important, but they are important to a certain degree. Therefore I give them a relative weight of 3 out of 10.

Organizational Effectiveness – The simple question here is can this candidate run an administration that is both efficient and effective? This involves execution of tasks and goals, creative thinking, bold action, and all within budget and time constraints. Obama seems to have taken the lead on this one, proving his ability by running on heckuva campaign.

Political Philosophy – this is the first one most people think of. I’m assuming that policy flows out of philosophy, so if you agree with a candidate on philosophy, the policy will work for you too. In the case of this year’s election, one must be very careful as the candidate each try to define the philosophy of the other. Of course, distortion is really what they seek, not definition.

Legislative Mojo – This is closely related to Organizational Effectiveness, but with a much narrower focus. Basically, will the candidate propose legislation and will he be able to get it passed into law? One’s philosophy may be great, but without the ability to actually persuade and move the lawmakers, you got nothing.

So here is what I came up with when I did my evaluation. This is a thin slice approach to the question. My numbers are just made up from gut feelings. I think the matrix is self-explanatory. McCain comes out the winner by a slight margin. 

Other factors I considered, but did not include in the matrix are 

Decisional Philosophy - Essentially this is a measure of where the candidate falls on the Pragmatic/Ideological continuum. Are decisions based on an idealogy that may or may not be connected with real conditions in a real world? Or are decisions based on available data, analyzed to make value determinations regarding courses of action, or pursuit of goals.

Conceptual Agility - How good is the candidate at seeking and using new ideas. Does he foster an atmosphere of creativity. Does he himself seek unorthodox positions, and is he willing to champion them if they are good for the country. This is closely related to Decisional Philosophy.

Still thinking this through. May need to adjust the matrix.

Tantrums at the Table

I’ve heard more than my share of friends who, disenchanted with the current state of politics and government in our United States, have made noises about not voting in the general election. For the most part, they are people who abhor Mr. Obama, but can’t bring themselves to vote for McCain either. So, like the child throwing a tantrum because he doesn’t like the options presented for lunch, they plan to sit in their seats at the dining table, arms crossed, and just let the election lunch proceed without them.

What bothers me most about this stance is that they seem to think this is a principled and scrupulous way to solve the dilemma. It isn’t. It is childish.

Life presents options. We must then choose and live with our choices. Our options may not be all that we wished, but they are the options we have. Either option presents problems, but that does not mean we can get away without choosing. NOT voting, NOT choosing is not really a responsible option. It is a coward’s way out. I say Man Up. Make your choice. Life is tough and we don't always like it so eat your peanut butter and move on. 

I can at least feel some respect for someone who votes for a third party candidate on principle. That is at least making a choice, even if it is off the main menu. A third party voter is much like the diner who must give the waiter all manner of special instructions for whatever sandwich he is ordering. “Could I get that with mayonnaise on the side, and can you trim all the extra fat from the roast beef, and while you are at it, can you substitute steamed vegetables for French fries?” As annoying as this is, at least it constitutes a taking positive action toward a perceived good, rather than a reactive shrinking away from (or worse, and resigned acceptance of) a perceived evil.

At any rate, I have said all along that we get the president we deserve, whoever that may be. For good or for bad, we as a nation have had the President we deserve for the last 8 years, and we will deserve the next one just as much. 

Elekshun Blues

My head it is aching. I got them ole election blues
Oh my head it’s aching. I got them ole election blues.
Got to pick one now and don’t know what to do.

It seemed so clear just a few short weeks gone by.
It all seemed clear just a few short weeks gone by.
Now I just sit and shake my head and sigh.

There’s one I liked but he ain’t there no mo.
They’s one I liked, but he just ain’t they no mo.
Someone locked him up and boarded up the door.

There’s one I don’t but he starts looking nice.
They’s one I don’t, but he starts looking nice.
A starving man don’t mind rocks in his rice.

I can’t trust any, I’m sho full up with doubt.
I don’t trust non, and I’m shot full up with doubt
You vote ‘em in, and they flip all inside out.

In the long run then it don’t mean no hill of beans.
In the long run then it don’t mean no hill of beans.
Who we ‘lect, or whichaway I leans.

It’s an awful thing to get the ‘lection blues.
Sho’ it’s a terrbul thing to have them ‘lection blues.
You can jus' pick one cuz you can’t elect no deuce.