Amy Sullivan: Ha! That'll Be The Day! Erm...
I promise to limit the number of times I link to my boyfriend (or myself) on this blog, but since he's a writer, a fellow journalist, and an astute political observer, it's going to happen from time to time. My apologies in advance.
With that over with, I'd like to direct your attention to this observation by Noam Scheiber, of The New Republic. A paragraph at the end of a New York Times story today caught his attention with this quote: "There's going to be a moderate party for Joe Blow, and whether that party is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, that's the battle we're seeing," Mr. Yelton [a lifelong North Carolina Democrat who recently switched parties] said. "I expect to see Hillary Clinton quoting Scripture before it's over with."
As Scheiber points out, Clinton does quote scripture. She goes to church, too. And she's a devoted member - with Sam Brownback - of a Senate Bible study group.
The fact that most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, "know" that these things can't possibly be true is a problem I've long thought was undervalued by those who assess Senator Clinton's presidential chances. Americans believe she is liberal and faithless. So when Clinton speaks as her true self, as a politically moderate woman of faith, one of two things happen: People either don't hear her because they can't process contradictory information, or they think she's faking it, positioning herself for a White House run.
If Clinton was just an unknown Senate candidate who was appearing on the political stage this fall, her moderate politics and sensible approach to cultural issues would make her a perfect Democratic candidate. But she isn't. And, frankly, if Hillary Clinton wasn't Hillary Clinton, she wouldn't be the presumptive Democratic nominee either.
With that over with, I'd like to direct your attention to this observation by Noam Scheiber, of The New Republic. A paragraph at the end of a New York Times story today caught his attention with this quote: "There's going to be a moderate party for Joe Blow, and whether that party is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, that's the battle we're seeing," Mr. Yelton [a lifelong North Carolina Democrat who recently switched parties] said. "I expect to see Hillary Clinton quoting Scripture before it's over with."
As Scheiber points out, Clinton does quote scripture. She goes to church, too. And she's a devoted member - with Sam Brownback - of a Senate Bible study group.
The fact that most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, "know" that these things can't possibly be true is a problem I've long thought was undervalued by those who assess Senator Clinton's presidential chances. Americans believe she is liberal and faithless. So when Clinton speaks as her true self, as a politically moderate woman of faith, one of two things happen: People either don't hear her because they can't process contradictory information, or they think she's faking it, positioning herself for a White House run.
If Clinton was just an unknown Senate candidate who was appearing on the political stage this fall, her moderate politics and sensible approach to cultural issues would make her a perfect Democratic candidate. But she isn't. And, frankly, if Hillary Clinton wasn't Hillary Clinton, she wouldn't be the presumptive Democratic nominee either.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Moderate politics? As in the failed health care plan?>
Posted by: Timbo | October 30, 2006 5:59 PM
I don't understand why her faith is important in the first place. Honestly the less Christians in the white house the better.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 30, 2006 6:06 PM
"I expect to see Hillary Clinton quoting Scripture before it's over with."
Hillary's a brilliant woman, but I have to say that this is a suitably chilling thought for Halloween ;)>
Posted by: badmash | October 30, 2006 6:56 PM
I don't believe Hillary is as radical as her enemies try to paint her.
What I do believe is that with her brilliant husband advising her, she will say almost anything to maneuver herself into the position she feels will get her the most votes. Her public statements on many subjects just keep "evolving" too much to be anything other than maneuvering (or pandering, if you prefer). She may or may not be the next president - I don't really care.
What will be interesting is when as president she finds herself either defending or continuing some policy of the Bush adminsitration, how quickly Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and other Democratic-minded folks will insist that the policy in question is all good and they have always been for it. It will also be interesting to see how quickly Bush supporters jump into the fray saying that the policy in question is evil and horrible and no true American or Christian could possibly support it.
It will be an entertaining spectacle, and I can't wait!>
Posted by: timks | October 30, 2006 7:07 PM
Is there any more hypocrisy in Hillary Clinton quoting scripture than with gw bush quoting scripture?
The only differences between Hillary Clinton and anyone else considering a bid for the presidency, Democrat of Republican, is that she is a woman and she is married to a former president. If you put any candidate under the microscope you will find flaws. Everyone running for office panders to the electorate.
If Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination for the presidency, I would have no problem voting for her, but I wouldn t have much hope of seeing her win. I m afraid the presidency is one of the few jobs in this country that is still only open to white men, and I don t expect to see that change within my lifetime.
Personally, I would love to see a woman or a minority as the president, but I don t have that much faith in the U.S. electorate.
This post will probably generate a lot of yeah, but responses.>
Posted by: neuro_nurse | October 30, 2006 7:29 PM
Neuro Nurse,
Unforunately I agree.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 30, 2006 7:30 PM
I would not like to see Hillary run for the Presidency.
She's a lightning rod for hate from the right.
Hillary is doing a great job in the Senate.
I'd like to see her develop into the grand old lady of the Senate.
I agree with Payshun, the fewer blatantly demonstrative Christians in our government the better.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 30, 2006 7:54 PM
Bush has a speech writer who's specialty is putting religious talk into his speeches. I've heard some of the things that he says when he doesn't know that the microphone's turned on and he's not reading a prepared speech. Let's just say that it wouldn't get him too far in Sunday School.
Faith talk from Hillary would be phony. I'm not saying that her faith is phony, but the infusion of Jesus and God into her way of communicating would come across as being phony to me.
I'd much prefer we all got back to discussing the pros and cons of pursuing/not pursuing certain initiatives to solve significant problems in our country, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. At least the midterm campaigning in my area didn't indicate that things are about to change.
Two moderates in my area are running for Congress. The Republican incumbent was painted as being in bed with Bush. The Democratic challenger was painted as being one of those nasty "liberals." Based on mailings and tv ads, I couldn't tell you what either candidate would do in office. No significant issues were addressed.
Things aren't going to change. The best we can hope for is a little competence.>
Posted by: watsy | October 30, 2006 8:09 PM
justinintime -
Is it just demonstrative Christians with which you have problems, or all demonstrative religious folks?
Would demonstrative communists (to pick an extreme example) bother you?>
Posted by: timks | October 30, 2006 8:31 PM
American politics is about the middle, or moderate, position. Always has been. But I don't think most Americans want more interference of the government in their lives. Most of us want less. We should vote for gridlock.
As Christians we should be doing the things we see as necessary to the social gospel ourselves and through our churches, not by engaging the political mechanism on our behalf. Only that which is done voluntarily can be done purely.>
Posted by: juris naturalist | October 30, 2006 8:56 PM
2 thoughts:
1. The Clintons, as much as I don't like them, are very good with politics. I have a very hard time believing Clinton is doing this for altruistic reasons, although I hope for her sake that I am wrong. She is blatantly pro-choice, which is pretty hard to do when following Christ.
2. I believe the Constitution states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI). In fact, I don't just believe it; I actually quoted it. I know you guys aren't saying Christians can't be in office, but I don't understand why you have such animosity towards them. If someone's faith requires them to act it out, they can't be disqualified for the office on these grounds. And Payshun, for you to say what you said, you have to be against every President in US history (since they all considered themselves Christian).>
Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 9:20 PM
As Christians we should be doing the things we see as necessary to the social gospel ourselves and through our churches, not by engaging the political mechanism on our behalf. Only that which is done voluntarily can be done purely.
Well said. Gridlock wouldn't be too bad, either, since our "conservative" Republicans keep expanding the government.>
Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 9:23 PM
[As Christians we should be doing the things we see as necessary to the social gospel ourselves and through our churches, not by engaging the political mechanism on our behalf. Only that which is done voluntarily can be done purely.]
I see that as half right. Yes, Christians and the whole body of Christ are to be at serving our fellow humans; but some of the founders also thought government should be at "promoting the general welfare.">
Posted by: Deryll | October 30, 2006 10:00 PM
Yes, and people like me believe that the general welfare is best promoted when the government does much less [than it does now] and individuals help voluntarily.>
Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 10:03 PM
She is blatantly pro-choice, which is pretty hard to do when following Christ.
Is it hard to think greed, selfishness, lying, pride, lust, etc. should be legal when following Christ?>
Posted by: D4P | October 30, 2006 10:08 PM
"Personally, I would love to see a woman or a minority as the president, but I don t have that much faith in the U.S. electorate."
Why? We elect frequently elect minorities to other positions. What do you think of Michael Steele? I certainly hope he wins in his race against Ben Cardin (Democratic minorities are lining up behind Steele, which is a good sign) and he seems to have the swagger to make it work.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2006 10:11 PM
I think people see Hilalry's faith as coldly political because her husband is coldly political (and hardly an example of faith). And also because she is coldly political.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2006 10:14 PM
[I know you guys aren't saying Christians can't be in office, but I don't understand why you have such animosity towards them.]
As Tom DeLay waits for his trial; isn't he going around "preaching"? "Some" of those who have blatently professed their faith have given Christianity a black eye. Perhaps that is the source of the comments. I think Jesus commanded us to humble ourselves for good reason!
I'm blatently pro-life; blatently anti war; blatently anti capital punishment; and blatently for balancing the budget by raising the taxes on the wealthiest of us. I don't expect to have a candidate any time soon.>
Posted by: Deryll | October 30, 2006 10:15 PM
I have a problem with anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian, in politics or not, who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
Secularists are having a field day publicizing the hypocrisy of people who wear their Christianity on their shirtsleeve. It hurts all of us.>
Posted by: neuro_nurse | October 30, 2006 10:16 PM
[Yes, and people like me believe that the general welfare is best promoted when the government does much less [than it does now] and individuals help voluntarily.]
I don't like regulations and paperwork in my work; however the government is duty bound to to try to stop those who voluntarily "rape and pillage" their fellow man (and the environment). Considering the nature of "us humans", I believe government must continue.>
Posted by: Deryll | October 30, 2006 10:26 PM
Yes, and people like me believe that the general welfare is best promoted when the government does much less [than it does now] and individuals help voluntarily
Would you prefer volunteer militias over the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?>
Posted by: D4P | October 30, 2006 10:37 PM
I'm in pretty much the same boat as Deryll. But I do have a Presidential candidate I can vote for - Joe Schreiner.
Hillary Clinton is a consistent death ethic candidate - pro-war, pro-abortion, pro-death penalty. Got a problem? Kill somebody. Unfortunately that does seem to qualify one as a "moderate" in American politics.
But it's sad to see a onetime prophetic Christian group like Sojourners sink to publishing the views of an apparent consistent death ethic supporter like Amy Sullivan, apparently with the idea that she represents their approach.
Sojourners trumpeted having Hillary speak at their conference this summer. But they wouldn't invite a consistent life ethic political alternative like Joe Schreiner.
I suggest that Christians not support Sojourners/Call to Renewal. If you have been contributing, redirect your contributions to groups which more closely represent the values of Jesus Christ, like Evangelicals for Social Action and Friends Committee on National Legislation.>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | October 30, 2006 10:59 PM
timks, "Is it just demonstrative Christians with which you have problems, or all demonstrative religious folks?
I don't have a problem with demonstrative Christians or any demonstrative religious folks per se.
But public servants that need to demonstrate their faith credentials in public cause me to suspect they might not have a humble spirit.
And self righteous arrogance turns me off.
I would like to see more public servants - conservative, liberal, progressive, green, libertartian, whatever they are - who can demonstrate their intelligence, integrity, wisdom, competence, energy and humble spirit.
Would demonstrative communists (to pick an extreme example) bother you?"
Communists need not apply.
Pure communism has many times been proven to be a tragic failure.
I believe government is good at some things and not good for others.
And I believe capitalism with a free market is good at some things and a failure in others.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 30, 2006 11:10 PM
Deryll,
I won't debate you on DeLay because it will get off topic. To your overall point, however, hypocrisy is wrong and can be damaging to the perception of Christians. But Payshun said, "the less Christians in the white house the better".
Also, I never indicated the government should discontinue. I agree with you on its purpose.
---
D4P,
The current military is voluntary and I believe it should remain that way. No I would not prefer militias over our current DoD structure. Both are necessary.
Also, the sins you mention (greed, etc.) are legal to the extent they do not cause positive harm to another (i.e., I can be as greedy as I want until I start steeling, then the law kicks in). That is because they are sinful thoughts. The government only regulates action, specifically action against someone else. Whatever thoughts may lead one to get an abortion are perfectly legal and should be. To say, however, that the act should also be legal is blatantly unchristian.>
Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 11:33 PM
"moderate politics" and "sensible approach to cultural issues"??
Is there any piece of legislation supported by prolife groups and opposed by prochoice groups that Clinton supports? It seems like parental notification for abortion (supported by a strong majority of the US) would be a "sensible approach to cultural issues", but Hillary and the Dems recently gutted such measures in the Senate. It seems like a sensible approach would not use a pro-abortion litmus test for all supreme court judges, and would not support tax-payer funded abortion and partial-birth abortion. I'm trying to figure out what's sensible about Hillary's approach to cultural issues, when she is on the side of death and clearly to the left of most Americans on these issues.
Are there any posters on this blog who are prolife or who think that abortion constitutes an injustice? I believe Ron Sider is. What do you think are the chances of getting him to post a prolife blog? Would Sojo allow him to do so?>
Posted by: jessie | October 30, 2006 11:53 PM
justintime, "But public servants that need to demonstrate their faith credentials in public cause me to suspect they might not have a humble spirit.
And self righteous arrogance turns me off."
I can sort of agree, but I believe a humble spirit will manifest itself whether or not the person demonstrates their 'faith credentials.' I completely agree with you on the self-righteous arrogance part. That is why I have little use for Jim Wallis, Jimmy Carter, Pat Robertson or [insert your least favorite self-righteous arrogant figure here]. I would not make the grave mistake of thinking that the Right has a monopoly on self-righteous arrogance.
"Communists need not apply.
Pure communism has many times been proven to be a tragic failure.
I believe government is good at some things and not good for others.
And I believe capitalism with a free market is good at some things and a failure in others."
Once again, we almost completely agree. I would argue that pure communism - at least as Marx envisioned it - has never been tried, thank goodness. The impure varieties tried so far are quite bad enough.
The only other thing I would qualify our agreement on is the last part of your statement. I think it is important to recognize the difference between an alleged "free market" failure and a free market result not to our liking.>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 12:39 AM
"Are there any posters on this blog who are prolife or who think that abortion constitutes an injustice? I believe Ron Sider is. What do you think are the chances of getting him to post a prolife blog? Would Sojo allow him to do so?"
Nope. But, remember. You can be prolife, and advocate for laws that make abortion legal under any circumstance. Convenient, huh?>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 31, 2006 1:40 AM
"...'There's going to be a moderate party for Joe Blow, and whether that party is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, that's the battle we're seeing,..'."
May some alternative to the democratic party or republican party emerge.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 31, 2006 2:27 AM
May some alternative to the democratic party or republican party emerge
Amen. I would like to see an explicitly Christ-following party that didn't identify with either of the two main secular parties and that wasn't beholden to monied interests.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 2:31 AM
This is an unusual position I find myself in - agreeing with anything Amy Sullivan says. But I must say that she is right in that it is not a surprise that Hillary Clinton would quote scripture. She is after all a Methodist (of the liberal kind). I don't think we have reason to doubt her sincerity.
I would not characterize her as a moderate though. Timbo is right - the attempt at a healthcare plan was about as far left as it's possible to get.
I don't see any reason to believe that her religious expression is essentially hypocritical. Lots of people in liberal mainline churches take the positions she does, especially on abortion. I'm not prepared to doubt the faith of a large proportion of the church in America, even if I am in strong disageement with their point of view. And since I don't beliueve there is anything essentially unChristian about being pro death penalty or pro war, I can hardly fault her for those views.
She is indeed a political opportunist - but then what politician isn't?
I do have some trouble with Sojourners touting the virtues of particular politicians - this is the second recent time they've done that. Shame on them.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 2:33 AM
Deryll, "I'm blatently pro-life; blatently anti war; blatently anti capital punishment; and blatently for balancing the budget by raising the taxes on the wealthiest of us. I don't expect to have a candidate any time soon."
You may never find a candidate that matches up with your all of your criteria.
But it's likely you will find a candidate that meets 3 out of your 4 criteria.
What will you do if that candidate doesn't satisfy your pro-life criterion?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 2:39 AM
It is an odd commentary here, where the progressives dislike Sen. Clinton becuase of her pro-war stance, and the conservatives are sure that she is a radical underneath all that conservative clothing.
What the Senator appears to be is some sort of ideological lighting rod for the Right. The reflexive response indicates less her actual positions or policies than an internalized need for a "demon" -- a personification of evil. For them, I would recommend the NYT Magazine portrait. The person is indeed some one quite other than the caricature.
(Oh, and healthcare? as the burgeoning millions without it testify, as the sham medicare drug poilcy so eloquently proclaims -- her program was far from radical. It was actually a sensible response. But that is a different argument)>
Posted by: HARRIS | October 31, 2006 2:51 AM
timks, "I would not make the grave mistake of thinking that the Right has a monopoly on self-righteous arrogance."
I try not to.
timks, "Once again, we almost completely agree. I would argue that pure communism - at least as Marx envisioned it - has never been tried, thank goodness. The impure varieties tried so far are quite bad enough."
Pure communism has been tried, I think, only on a very small scale. Even then it failed.
The dramatic failures of communism were totalitarian states.
Today's communists feel that the failures were due more from the totalitarian political structure than from the communistic economic structure.
I think that's what keeps the die hard communists going.
They don't think communism was ever given a fair chance to succeed.
timks, "The only other thing I would qualify our agreement on is the last part of your statement. I think it is important to recognize the difference between an alleged "free market" failure and a free market result not to our liking."
Could you give some examples to illustrate your point?
Where do you think government can be successful?
Where do you think free markets fall down?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 2:59 AM
HARRIS, "(Oh, and healthcare? as the burgeoning millions without it testify, as the sham medicare drug poilcy so eloquently proclaims -- her program was far from radical. It was actually a sensible response. But that is a different argument)"
I agree with this.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:01 AM
Jessie, "It seems like parental notification for abortion (supported by a strong majority of the US) would be a 'sensible approach to cultural issues', but Hillary and the Dems recently gutted such measures in the Senate. It seems like a sensible approach would not use a pro-abortion litmus test for all supreme court judges, and would not support tax-payer funded abortion and partial-birth abortion."
I agree with you on this Jessie.
I was disappointed when the Dems stripped this out of the initiative.
But I wasn't surprised.
The electorate has been so polarized by the abortion issue that it will be difficult to even get an 'abortion reduction' bill through Congress.
I think this is because of over-the-top aggressiveness by the anti-abortion movement.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:09 AM
"...the attempt at a healthcare plan was about as far left as it's possible to get...".
Availability of healthcare seems parallel with caring for those who are thirsty, hungry, "naked" or lacking adequate shelter.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 31, 2006 3:12 AM
Mike -
"Availability of healthcare seems parallel with caring for those who are thirsty, hungry, "naked" or lacking adequate shelter."
Agreed, but making it a crime to choose your own doctor does go over the top a bit.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:16 AM
Gordon, "Agreed, but making it a crime to choose your own doctor does go over the top a bit."
A crime?
A bit overstated, Gordon.
Many private plans don't allow you to choose your own doctor either.
I'm for universal health care where you get to choose your own doctor.
I hope Congress takes another run at passing universal health care.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:20 AM
Justin -
Then it's a matter of finding a healthcare plan that allows you to choose your own doctor, as mine does. Anyway, my point was not that you couldn't choose your own doctor, but that her plan made it a crime to do so - that is, forbade any possibility of a private healthcare market for those with the means to pay.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:23 AM
Bill Samuels, "I'm in pretty much the same boat as Deryll. But I do have a Presidential candidate I can vote for - Joe Schreiner."
I like Joe Schreiner, based on his website.
He doesn't say if he's pro-life.
If he had a real chance of being elected, I might vote for him.
What do you think of Dennis Kucinich?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:29 AM
Justin -
"If he had a real chance of being elected, I might vote for him"
In my view, this is why we have so few alternatives.
Take a chance - vote for someone with no real hope of winning, just to make a statement - like Gatewood Galbraith.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:32 AM
vote for someone with no real hope of winning, just to make a statement
I'm sympathetic to that approach, and I've followed it before. I'm not sure it did much good...>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 3:34 AM
D4 -
It actually had a salutary effect in Kentucky, where the independent candidate won more of the vote than the Republican candidate, and the winner got less than half the vote.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:36 AM
"I believe government can do some good."
No. It can't.
And even if it could, Christ never sanctioned the use of force to achieve His ends. All government is force. Christians should seek to achieve their ends solely through voluntary means. The free market works well, and supplimented by the voluntary actions of those motivated by imitation of their God, can even meet the needs of the "least of these." Unbelievers have mo moral imperitive to help the "least of these" and Christians have no right to make other people act morally.
It is the Christian's responsibility, exclusively, to care for the world. We do this, in part, by being prosperous, and generous.>
Posted by: juris naturalist | October 31, 2006 3:38 AM
Gordon,
I didn't like Hillary's plan that much either.
It was a valiant effort, but my beef was that it was too much driven by the insurance industry and I don't think it would have been as efficient as the already functioning universal health care systems in the world.
I think most of the inefficiency in our present system is from too many profit centers and more bureacracy than the worst government I can imagine.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:39 AM
Come to think of it, Perot helped Clinton get elected in 1992, and Nader probably helped Bush get elected in 2000. But in neither case did the "other candidate" actually win. If voting for the other candidate means helping your least favorite option, the incentives are pretty strong to vote for your second favorite option instead of the other party candidate.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 3:40 AM
Justin -
Once in a while we agree completely on something. I attribute much of the problem with healthcare access in the U.S. to its dominance by health insurance carriers.
D4 -
Sometimes it's not about voting for the winning candidate. Sometimes it's about convincing the two nearly identical parties that we just aren't happy with either of them.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:45 AM
I'm with D4P.
The best outcome is that you might encourage the candidate that you like best, but doesn't have a chance, to try again next time.
The American political system is based on two parties.
If we had a proportional representation system we would have more choices of candidates with half a chance of getting in there.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:48 AM
Sometimes it's about convincing the two nearly identical parties that we just aren't happy with either of them
I agree completely, but I question whether the parties ever actually "get the message." I don't identify with either party, largely because I think they're both messed up. I'm usually tempted to either not vote (my normal response), or vote for someone else. But I'm not convinced either of those approaches has the impact I would like.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 3:49 AM
Though we generally accept the idea, it's ridiculous to think that all possible combinations of stances on issues are somehow represented by two parties. I personally don't feel like either party (even when they explicitly claim to be Christian) does a good job of representing Christ.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 3:51 AM
Gordon, "Sometimes it's about convincing the two nearly identical parties that we just aren't happy with either of them."
You can express your disapproval in many other ways.
In my opinion, voting for a loser is not much better than staying home and watching the election on TV.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:52 AM
D4 -
I would definitely agree with that.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:53 AM
Well, Justin, he's only a certain loser because more of us don't vote for him.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 4:00 AM
D4P,
Take for example, Germany.
Right now Germany is governed by a coalition of the Christian Democrat Union and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria.
The Other parties are:
Social Democratic Party of Germany
Free Democratic Party
The Left Party
Alliance 90/The Greens
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:08 AM
I also feel like the two-party system provides too much of a "cop-out" for candidates, who can just put an R or a D after their name without having to be completely explicit about their platform or even try to come up with new ideas. The system doesn't seem to provide much incentive for innovation. More competition would probably be a good thing.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 4:10 AM
Well Gordon,
You have to get out and work for your favorite candidate.
Did you do that?
Maybe you figured it wouldn't make any difference, he would lose anyway.
That's the problem with using your vote just to "send a message".
No one is listening.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:12 AM
Take for example, Germany.
We have friends from New Zealand, which evidently has a parliamentary system in which many minority parties get representation and some degree of "voice" in decision-making processes.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 4:13 AM
One of the problems with proportional representation is the potential for unstable government.
Italy and Israel, for example.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy with dozens of parties, including a marijuana party.
My Canadian friends complain about their government too, but I think it's pretty good compared to ours.
Canadians tend to be much better informed on average than Americans.
That makes a big difference.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:21 AM
Canadians tend to be much better informed on average than Americans
I think a lot of elites in our country (whether politicians, corporations, etc.) depend on us being uninformed.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 4:24 AM
D4P, "I think a lot of elites in our country (whether politicians, corporations, etc.) depend on us being uninformed."
Bingo.
I think a big priority for the survival of democracy in America is to reorganize the media.
Americans have become hypnotized by corporate TeeVee.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:31 AM
The corporate media is gouging our democracy.
Politicians have to take bribes to pay for TeeVee ads to get themselves reelected.
I think that providing free air time for serious candidates to get their message out should be a condition for the FCC granting franchises to use the public airwaves.
I see this as the solution to our dysfunctional democracy.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:36 AM
Agreed. And it is very difficult to stay informed if you listen only to the mainstream media. The information is out there, but you have to dig for it - books, internet, independent media, live talks and presentations.>
Posted by: Blue | October 31, 2006 4:42 AM
Corporate teevee is toxic to the brain.
Three years ago our family of 5 stopped watching corporate teevee cold turkey.
We re getting more done.
We re reading more good books.
We watch good movies - without the ads.
We hunt our news down on the internet.
Instead of having it spoon fed to us.
We ve lengthened our attention spans.
We have a more positive outlook on life.
You can kick the habit too.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:47 AM
Agreed again. I haven't owned a TV since I was 18, and that was longer ago than I want to admit. Raised three kids without it too. It's a useless thing. Makes people pay attention to things that don't matter much.>
Posted by: Blue | October 31, 2006 4:53 AM
justintime, "Could you give some examples to illustrate your point?
Where do you think government can be successful?
Where do you think free markets fall down?"
Our current health care situation is perceived as the failure of the free market by many. I believe it is much more accurate to see it as the inevitable result of much government blundering.
I think government can be successful in many areas. The powers enumerated in the Constitution, for starters.
I think free markets fall down in areas where the necessary conditions for them don't exist. For example, where title to property is not clear or not enforced; or where gangs of robbers have free rein; to list two examples.>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 4:55 AM
timks,
I'll get back to you tomorrow.
G'nite all.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 5:00 AM
I don't think that the role of government is to protect capitalism or the free market. The role of government is to protect the weak from the powerful. Often that will mean restricting the free market, as in outlawing child labor, breaking up monopolies, stopping the dumping of toxins into public water, regulating safety in the workplace...
Capitalism and the free market, left unrestricted, are not some benevolent force for good.>
Posted by: Blue | October 31, 2006 5:16 AM
Force, hmmm. I am not sure Christ never sanctioned force. Granted he only used force once but still he did. I think some force from governement is necessary when injustice and darkness won't be challenged w/o it. Let's look at the Civil Rights era. W/o the federal government backing up what the activists were doing they would have been slaughtered.
Every once in a while the government gets it right which is far better than individual states records on social justice issues.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 5:24 AM
And sometimes a state government will get it before the feds will. Some states have raised the minimum wage. They gave up on waiting for Washington. There are other issues too where some states have taken the lead. Here in NY if I outfit my house to produce solar power, I can sell back to the grid. I don't think that's nationwide yet.>
Posted by: Blue | October 31, 2006 5:55 AM
States have a much better chance of getting "it" right before the Federal government. That is why local control has been an essential aspect of American history and government.
The Federal government has been sucking up more and more power over the last few decades, however, which has perhaps made us more powerful internationally, but has created over taxation (I believe we are currently way over taxed - and I pay barely anything - I mean this across the board) and ineffective bureaucracy.
I don t agree that the government does no good, but believe this good is limited to only a few small areas (enacting justice, for instance - one of the only areas the NT speaks to [Rom. 13]). Blue, I don't think the government should be doing most of those things, but believe they shouldn't for probably the same reasons you think they should (although the government should protect both the weak and the powerful equally).>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 6:16 AM
Gordon:
"Timbo is right - the attempt at a healthcare plan was about as far left as it's possible to get."
If her health care plan was proposed in the UK, it would be considered hard-right - so much so that no serious politician would raise it
The Christian Democratic Party in Germany is pro-choice and it's quite possible to be against abortion and wish to reduce it's frequency while not wanting to make it illegal. Prohibition just lowers the quality and raises the price>
Posted by: Richard Fannon | October 31, 2006 10:12 AM
Generally speaking, the public do not like female leaders who look like they could carry a pregnancy: Hillary will have a more reasonable-chance run at the US Presidency if she waits a few years or frumps herself up some. (For men it is height that matters. Shallow lot ain't we?)
I do not see Clinton as religious or not religious. Her quoting scripture would not surprise me.
There is one thing here that does matter: Her social policy. We're going to have to start working on the male problems. There are now too many to ignore. Yet, it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton can back away from her feminist roots enough to tackle a male problem. This leaves her with insufficient support to gain a reasonable odds shot at the Presindency even if she overcomes her "looks" problem.
Condi Rice probably has a better shot at the White House than does Hillary Clinton, unless Clinton makes some important changes. Both stand a better shot in 8 years than they do right now.>
Posted by: jw | October 31, 2006 10:43 AM
Richard says that Hillary's healthcare proposals would be considered right wing over here.
Absolutely. Even the hardest conservatives support the idea of free healthcare for all at the point of delivery.
The Clintons are very popular over here. But neither would be considered religious. That sort of thing has a far more negative efect on voters over here so politicians don't say much.
From a personal viewpoint I would be more likely to support a candidate who focussed on important issues like poverty, human rights, the environment and peace than one who said 'I am Christian vote for me.'>
Posted by: stevecornforth - uk | October 31, 2006 11:54 AM
You do realize that the US spends a greater portion of their GDP than Britain on govt-funded healthcare, right? I also don't call a healthcare plan that would have taken up 1/7th of our GDP "hard right" (what Hillary's plan would have done). The truth is it was far to the left of the UK's plan, in many ways.>
Posted by: jessie | October 31, 2006 2:04 PM
justintime,
Germany is actually governed currently by a "grand coalition" composed of the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD).
The current Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is from the CDU. She is actually something of a free-market advocate (at least by German standards) but the grand coalition has tied her hands in this regard.
The Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) is a "sister party" of the CDU and as far as I know the two have always cooperated at the federal level.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | October 31, 2006 2:31 PM
Blue - Why do you think there should be a national minimum wage?>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 2:35 PM
On the Christian level, it does appear that Democrats are far worse than Republicans.
Foley dwells in another kind of community; and the greedy exist in such large numbers in both political parties it does cloud the issue a bit.
But certainly, the GOP does not hate Christians the way the Liberal/Progressives that fill the ranks of the Democrats do.>
Posted by: AskWhyNow | October 31, 2006 2:37 PM
Hillary Clinton is a great senator, and I hope she disappoints the pundit class, and decides not to run for President.
Her negatives are just to high, IMO, but she is a thoroughly professional, competent, thoughtful woman, and I think she should content herself with representing New York.
Could she be President? No doubt. Will she be? I highly doubt it.>
Posted by: Alicia | October 31, 2006 2:45 PM
Askwhynow, "On the Christian level, it does appear that Democrats are far worse than Republicans.
But certainly, the GOP does not hate Christians the way the Liberal/Progressives that fill the ranks of the Democrats do."
Sounds like AskWhyNow is into hate politics.
Hate will bite you back.
Love your enemy.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:04 PM
'You do realize that the US spends a greater portion of their GDP than Britain on govt-funded healthcare, right?'
Sorry - I wasn't commenting on which of us had the better healthcare system. I don't know enough about your system to say.
I was just agreeing with a previous poster that free healthcare for all is not a party political matter over here - it is no longer a right/left issue as it was before 1948.>
Posted by: stevecornforth - uk | October 31, 2006 3:22 PM
About Hillary, health insurance, and abortion....
I am teaching a course at a local college and in this course I have a student visiting from India for a year. Upon arriving in America she discovered that she is pregnant, having conceived with her husband before leaving home. She cannot afford medical care and she cannot yet afford to travel home. Her student insurance considers it a pre-existing condition and won't cover it. The American government won't cover it. She is scared.
There are people advising her that abortion is her best option. I have worked hard to arrange for the most inexpensive care that I can for her and she is beginning to get excited about the baby. She is in week 12 and has so far accumulated $2,500 in bills she can't pay - fomr one hospital visit when she feared a miscarriage.
This is the wealthiest nation in the world. It is an absolute tragedy that we are not taking care of all pregnant women. Medicaid prenatal care was cut by Bill Frist to fund the Bush tax cuts, a program that was estimated to save 20,000 babies per year. It is absolutely anathema to me that we sit by while this is swept out of sight and out of mind.
Much talk has gone on here about Hillary being pro-socialized health insurance (which is different than health care) and pro-choice. But Hillary wants to provide that service and save those lives - she did not support a regressive tax cut instead. Her failure on socialized medicine masks her biggest success as First Lady and Senator - combatting teen pregnancies.
Hillary has said that she is anti-abortion but she believes that we should stop short of legislating this choice and instead expect families to make the right decisions. For her, my wife, and many other Americans (inclusing Sarah Weddington, archtiect of Roe) choice is about affirming that women are equal partners in marriage and equal authorities in the home. As Hillary says, I've never heard of anyone who is pro-abortion.
I don't want Hillary to run for President. To much ground to make up. But I think it is easy to demonize her without being nearly as critical of her colleagues who, in many cases, are even further off the mark. Let's admit her sins but let's celebrate her good points too.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 3:35 PM
Why do so many on the right believe people on the left are not people of faith? Or worse, that we "hate" people of faith?>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | October 31, 2006 4:11 PM
Fer instance, HAC said, "If someone's faith requires them to act it out, they can't be disqualified for the office on these grounds."
What if someone's faith required them to act differently than, say, an extreme fundamentalist evangelical might act?
Are you saying that person could/should be disqualified for office on these grounds?
Not everyone goes to YOUR "church".>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | October 31, 2006 4:13 PM
curiouser,
I think it's secular fundamentalism that creates that impression. Note that Payshun said very early in the comments above 'the fewer Christians in government the better' or something like that. The distinct impression I get is that people on the right are far more scared of avid athiests and communists than of fundamentalists and fascists. For me it's just the opposite....>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 4:26 PM
Curiouser,
As far as people criticizing the faith of others, the Dems and Dem leaders have committed that misdeed time and time again. Pelosi said voting against the Republican budget was an "act of worship." Dean said Republicans only take a few verses of the Bible seriously while Democrats take them all seriously. Kerry said Bush practices "faith without works." And most recently, TN Senate candidate Ford (Dem) said Republicans don't love the Lord.
So, to review...Republican leaders don't criticize the Democrats' faith, yet they get charged with doing so. Democrats attack the faith of Republicans, they get away with it, and even project their own misdeeds onto Republicans.
Something wrong with conventional wisdom here?>
Posted by: jessie | October 31, 2006 4:33 PM
jessie,
TN Senate candidate Ford (Dem) said Republicans don't love the Lord.
I've seen most of what Ford has said and done. Would you mind sharing with me where you saw or heard this?
Ford worked with Republican Mark Green of Wisconsin to redirect and dedicate the the House Community Solutions and Initiatives Coalition as a faith-based caucus precisely directed at acknowledging Republicans and Democrats alike share a strong faith and can agree on a wide range of these issues.
Ford has claimed throughout the race that he doesn't view these questions as democrat or Republican. His latest ad says, "I believe in God, I believe in you, an I believe in a new direction. That's why I approve this message."
Republican leaders don't criticize the Democrats' faith
Ironically, Bob Corker and the RSCC have launched an offensive attacking Harold Ford's faith.
http://haroldfordjr2006.blogspot.com/2006/10/for-corker-desperate-times-call-for.html
">http://haroldfordjr2006.blogspot.com/2006/10/breaking-ford-campaign-launches-new-ad.html>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 5:18 PM
Actually conservatives are not just charged w/ criticizing the faith of the left but they do so w/ reckless abandon.
You are right though Democrats do criticize the hypocrisy of the right. Probably the biggest criciticism I have seen is that the Republican party serves the good old boy network and that it is by and large a party for white people.
I realize that the party is more nuanced than that but they have no love for the log cabin republicans and they try to point out how it's inclusive to all but then one rarely sees crowds of people that look different than your stereotyped view of republicans. How often do you see black or latin republicans intermeshed throughout the party?
Or gay and lesbians. Granted the democrats are hypocrits when it comes to dealing w/ gay rights but at least people are out and proud there.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 5:31 PM
curiouser,
I have no problem with elected officials governing according to their religious convictions (within the bounds of law and the Constitution, of course). I may vote against someone because I disagree with how their faith plays out, but I don't discredit them because of their faith, or because they act out that faith (things often done by the Left - i.e., read the beginning of this discussion). I discredit them because I believe they are wrong.
.>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 5:43 PM
Here are some examples of conservative leaders that say the darndest things about their democratic political adversaries:
Tony Perkins:
Mr. Perkins wrote, "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."
A flier for a republican event said:
"the filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and now it is being used against people of faith."
Here is place where I got it from.
http://www.nysun.com/article/12357
I can list more. Look at what Ann Coulter and Rush have said over the years. Then we got people like Jerry Falwell and the others and you will see this trend among many conservative Christian leaders and republican talking heads that reveal that they don't think people on the left have faith or are faithful.
That's weak sauce.
Granted we on the left have criticized the actions of a few and said that their lack of action reveals a lack of faith but I am not sure that's the same thing as saying we don't have faith.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 5:49 PM
How often do you see black or latin republicans intermeshed throughout the party?
Alan Keyes, JC Watts, Colin Powel, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Carlos Gutierrez, Alphonso Jackson, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell...
That was just off the top of my head (plus a couble cabinet positions I had to look up).>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 5:49 PM
Thanks to Daniel for the post about the student from India who realized after arriving that she was pregnant back in India and her pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, not eleigible for coverage here.
May she be able to acquire the health care she must have.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 31, 2006 5:50 PM
Payshun,
Why, when those on the Left want to criticize Republicans, do they quote people who are not in office? I could start quoting elected Democrats to the same "extreme" (perhaps more) than whatever you pull from unelected conservatives.
.>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 5:53 PM
Each day the level of stupidity in this forum rises exponentially. Sweeping generalizations, uninformed assertions, inappropriate use of terms--my kids and I read it for entertainment.>
Posted by: Dutch fop | October 31, 2006 6:05 PM
Dutch is a communist vegetarian, whom we all know hates Christian fundamentalists. Does this suffice? :)>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 6:09 PM
Dutch fop, Do you live in Holland?
If you do, tell us about your health care system.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 6:25 PM
HAC,
Actually we do criticize those in office. THe cultural leaders of the religious right are not always those elected. Some of those leaders include but are not limited to Newt Gingrinch...
Why is that only a small group of black and latin leaders are part of the Republican party? Could it be because there is a perception and reality that the party is not welcoming to folks w/ different points of view?
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 6:56 PM
Most black and latino voters don't vote Republican.
A majority of asians don't either.
Have you ever thought about that, HAC?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 7:09 PM
Dutch fop said, "Each day the level of stupidity in this forum rises exponentially. Sweeping generalizations, uninformed assertions, inappropriate use of terms."
The meter just red-lined with that post!>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 7:09 PM
Payshun, Justin...
I gave you examples of predominate minorities in the Republican Party. Is that inconsequential?
Yes, most blacks and other minorities do not vote for Republicans. That is because those on the Left use fear tactics and play the race card frequently (see: Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.). The Left said Bush didn't do enough in New Orleans because he hated blacks! How absurd.
But when ideas like these are so ingrained in American life, it is very hard for someone to get beyond them. Voting Democrat is a religion for some on the Left (also voting Republican for some on the Right, but I'm not talking to that), especially for minorities, and those that dare to act differently are vilified by those of the same race: "Uncle Tom", "Traitor", etc.>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 7:38 PM
HAC,
It's not fear and stupidity that keep black people voting for Democrats. Al Sharpton's 2004 DNC speech centered on the fact that this kind of statement is itself evidence of why black people can't find a home among the GOP.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 8:11 PM
Payshun,
As HAC said, you haven't quoted any Republican leader. Only quotes from conservatives. All my quotes are from democrats and democratic leaders.
Daniel,
It seems that Corker is attacking Ford's integrity and hypocrisy more than he is directly attacking his faith. I certainly didn't read anything there as blatant as the Democrats I cited. Here is Ford's quote, "'Republicans fear the Lord. Democrats fear and love the Lord.'" The link: ">http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/politics/article/0,1426,MCA_1496_5105834,00.html>
Posted by: jessie | October 31, 2006 8:26 PM
jessie,
Yeah, that's not cool. I wish Harold hadn't said that. I know what he means - he's referring to two different visions of God, which he clearly gets here: http://www.haroldfordjr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=149 - but most people have both and emphasize a different aspect of God. He must be feeling very agitated to say something like that. I hope he explains or apologizes....>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 8:40 PM
Daniel,
I don't think it's stupidity at all. I think it is cultural expectations. The same thing can be seen in the Jewish community. I've heard prominent Jews speak about how voting Republican was like changing a religion to them, and how great the peer pressure from family and community to vote Democrat was. I don't think many people consider Jews to be stupid (I hope not - if anything, anti-Semites criticize them for being too crafty [although I find these criticisms unfounded]).
_>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 8:47 PM
Dennis Kucinich was an outspoken consistent life ethic politician until he decided to run for President, when he felt he had to switch sides on abortion to run as a Democratic Presidential candidate. Ditto for Jesse Jackson earlier, who was once perhaps the most articulate advocate of the pro-life position on abortion on the progressive side of the political spectrum.
There are legions of other prominent Democrats who were never fully CLE but were strongly pro-life on abortion before becoming interested in Presidential politics - such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and Ted Kennedy.>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | October 31, 2006 8:49 PM
Oh, and I've heard blacks share the same thing, that changing parties was like committing blasphemy or being a traitor.>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 8:49 PM
HAC,
Still politically and ideologically conservatives don't get it. The reason why so many black people have a group think is because of what happened after Civil Rights Voting Act passed. The anti-black bitter south jumped ship and decided from that moment forward to always vote republican.
The democrats (being recovering racists themselves) offered blacks, Asians, Latins and many other ethnic groups an alternative to what has been a predominately white party. You see and this is something you all seem to not understand.
Many black people have a very long cultural memory. We remember the shaming that those democrats turned republicans gave us. Even though many have grown and walked away from much of the overt racism that characterized your party party in the past there is still this lingering perspective about your party advancing the causes of rich white men.
Nothing has been done to change that.
As for Pelosi quote, please explain what's so bad about saying voting against the budget was an act of worship? The current republican party seems to worship one thing over God and that's power.
It's about time someone said it.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 9:28 PM
HAC,
I noticed your blog post about John Kerry today. I recall back in October 2004, the night Dick Cheney gave his speech at the RNC. I went to a Kerry rally in a hangar at the Nashville airport.
On my way, I stopped for gas on Donelson Pike, near my home. The car in front of me was an Olds and there was a big black man pumping gas into it while his wife talked to him from inside the car. It was raining on us despite the shelter, but I pulled my jacket tight and walked over. I explained that I had two extra tickets to the rally and would love for them to take them and come hear what he had to say.
The black man put his hand on my shoulder. He explained to me that he and his wife both have to work two jobs to pay the bills and keep their kids, whom they never see. The only thirty minutes they spend together every day is between jobs in the car. The man's wife got out of the car and out her arms around her husband. They stood there in the rain crying and both holding the invitations together. After a moment we were all drenched, but they handed them back to me and said, "Thank you. It's such an honor justto get to touch the invitation."
When I got to the event, I waited a long time. On my right I had ended up running into my high school debate coach, a devout Catholic who was a successful lawyer out of Notre Dame who had changed careers when law turned out to be unfulfilling. On my left was a Rabbi with whom I struck up a conversation after seeing that his Kerry Edwards button was written in Hebrew. What I learned was that these men both shared a passion for peace and a heart for the poor.
When Kerry arrived, he was preceded on stage by speeches. First came Phil Bredeson, our governor, who talked about family and the need for health care for all. Then John Glenn talked about the burdens of the poor. Harold Ford got up and spoke about fiscal discipline, competence, and creating real wealth. Kerry took the stage and said that he believes John Edwards has it right - too many Americans are working hard and not getting ahead and that is wrong in the USA.
After I got home that night, I watched the RNC speeches. Arnold Schwarzanegger called democrats girlie men and said, "If you wohk hahd und play by the rools you wuhl get ahhead." The Vice President followed him with crowd pleasers like, "I guess that's why John Edwards needs two Americas."
In one night I saw clearly the two visions of where we are and where we're going laid out. There was no ambiguity in which one matches reality for me....
The following day I processed all this with my coworkers of varioud ethnicities and both genders. Turns out that for the Democrats the message resonated just the same as with me. For the Republicans, Cheney had exposed the bleeding heart, big government, pansies on the other side.
But the image of that couple holding the invitationin the pouring rain is seared into my brain. I can't ignore it or get away from it....>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 9:36 PM
Payshun said, "...The democrats (being recovering racists themselves)..."
Are you entirely sure about that and willing to stake your political fortunes on it?
Given the nature of politicians, I find it extremely difficult to believe that all the racists are in only one party. I think Senators Byrd and Reid are two examples of Democratic racists. Senator Lott is probably a GOP example.
Then there is the racism involved in policies predicated on the belief that African-Americans aren't capable of taking care of themselves. Isn't that a racist notion? I believe it is and it is held by members of both parties.>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 9:40 PM
Bill,
American voters are so polarized over the abortion issue that it will be difficult to get even an abortion reduction bill through Congress.
In my opinion, this is because of all or nothing, aggressive tactics of the anti abortion activists.
These hard line, take no prisoners tactics only harden the resistance of "pro-choice" activists.
Hard line anti-abortion tactics play right into the hands of Karl Rove's Republican Party divisive politics, which has given us mediocre leaders of questionable competence.
The Christian right's push for Bush to stack the Supreme Court with anti abortion justices has done little more than erode Americans' respect for the highest court in the land.
We now have a Supreme Court with 4 out of 9 justices who are, above all, partisan Republicans and Bush loyalists.
I think it's time for America to think of incremental approaches to reducing the frequency of abortions, with a goal of reaching zero.
This approach may take longer but I think it's the only way to get the job done.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 9:46 PM
"The current republican party seems to worship one thing over God and that's power.
It's about time someone said it."
Payshun says it.
I believe it.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 9:54 PM
"In one night I saw clearly the two visions of where we are and where we're going laid out. There was no ambiguity in which one matches reality for me...."
You are comparing the subtance of an extended stump speech with the substance of a joking sound bite. Arnold has plenty of credibility when he talks about working hard, whether you like his politics or not.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 31, 2006 9:55 PM
My political fortunes have next to nothing to do w/ the democratic party. I am green but even more important than that I am a member of my father's kingdom. I need not worry about all of the destructive trends currently hitting the world today in the same way as others because I have my father's spirit and he is a great guide. having said that if I find candidates that can support most of what I believe I will vote accordingly.
Racists exist in both parties of that there is no doubt. Heck it is my belief that everyone in this country bares the taint of that most human sin. Honestly I think the world is in its power and hardly even realizes it but I digress.
The culture of dependency which repbulicans and conservatives always point out is a sham based off the very racism conservatives pretend doesn't exist. They use it to show that the democrats don't care about blacks. The reality is that there are more white people on welfare and feed into the culture of dependency than blacks.
The fact is the republican party has no plan to enter into the innercity and revitalize it. The only real plan they have is gentrification. But I will leave that alone for now.
I honestly don't fully buy into the idea that democrats don't care about black people but I do feel that the democratic party uses the black vote the same way the republican party uses the Conservative Christian vote; they both use them to get elected. They take my brothers and sisters for granted and that's a problem.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 10:01 PM
Payshun,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
We must always be wary of (white) Republicans with their "Dems-Don't-Care-About-Blacks" attack strategy.
Remember, this is the same party who brought us:
"Imminent Threat"
"Mushroom Cloud"
"Mission Accomplished"
"Last Throes"
"Heck of a Job Brownie"
"We Do Not Torture"
and
"Stay the Course/We've Never Been About Stay the Course.">
Posted by: Tenoch | October 31, 2006 10:19 PM
Tenoch - That Payshun's comments were thoughtful, I agree. That you interpreted them to be aimed only at white Republicans demonstrates clearly his point about the entire world being in the throes of racism and not realizing it.>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 10:25 PM
"the democratic party uses the black vote the same way the republican party uses the Conservative Christian vote; they both use them to get elected. They take my brothers and sisters for granted and that's a problem."
--You mean your brothers and sisters in Christ?>
Posted by: jessie | October 31, 2006 11:22 PM
No I mean the vernacular for black people. Some of us call each other brother and sister or brotha and sista.
p>
Posted by: Anonymous | October 31, 2006 11:31 PM
If I had a student who had run up hospital bills she couldn't pay, I would:
1. Pay them myself if I had the money
2. If I lacked the money, go to my church and ask for help (we provide this kind of help all the time, via our alms fund)
3. If our alms fund were tapped out, approach other churches in the area, most of which also provide this sort of compassionate help
4, If no church were willing to help, approach affluent individuals in my church with the problem
This would work, and it is the kind of thing we as Christians are supposed to do. Why should we rely on the government to do what we are capable of doing?
And it doesn't even require the existence of non-Christian charities.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 11:35 PM
Why should we rely on the government to do what we are capable of doing?
Why do we pay taxes for things like road construction and national defense? Maybe we should just rely on people to voluntarily contribute funding for those things as well.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 11:44 PM
D4 -
We pay taxes for those things because they are what government legitimately does. We are not, in my view, called generally to build roads and provide for the national defense.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 11:45 PM
First, do you believe in some kind of exhaustive God-given list of the legitimate functions of government, or do you believe such a list is essentially arbitrary?
Second, if we're not called to (e.g.) build roads and fund national defense, should individuals be allowed to opt out of such expenditures if they don't support them? Put another way, should people be forced to fund things they don't support?
Third, do you believe that, if taxpayers were no longer required to support social program functions that Christians are supposed to provide, those taxpayers would contribute the same amount (or more) to those programs that they do under taxation?>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 11:54 PM
Postcards of the Hanging: Race and Sex in Tennessee
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/103106J.shtml
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 12:26 AM
D4 -
The list of the functions of government is given in the pramble to the constitution. One can argue about what some of the terms mean, but providing for the national defense is explicitly enumerated.
Individuals can't opt out of paying their taxes, which pay for the legitimate functions of government. My point was that we are called a Christians to do particular things, regardless of whether the government does them or not. If we were to take that call seriously, government could concern itself with those things I believe to be the legitimate functions of government.
I have no idea whether we'd pay the same or more (I know I would), but that doesn't make these legitimate functions of government.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 12:32 AM
The list of the functions of government is given in the pramble to the constitution
In other words, the list is essentially arbitrary and has no "absolute" authority. Times change; so can lists.
but that doesn't make these legitimate functions of government
Seems to me that, in the absence of some kind of biblical list, the legitimate functions of the government are whatever we determine them to be.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 12:42 AM
D4 -
That's exactly right, and the Framers put them in the Preamble. Until we decide to amend that, those are the legitimate functions of government.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 12:59 AM
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Seems to me that the phrase "promote the general Welfare" can apply to a wide array of functions, and is not clearly limited to a narrow, specified set. People can argue over what should count under "general Welfare," but I don't think there's any authoritative list of what should count.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 1:06 AM
D4 -
That's exactly right, and that is the point of my argument. I don't believe that "promoting the general welfare" necessarily implies that government has any business in providing healthcare to the indigent.
What is meant by any statute is a matter of its intent at the time it was written, and I very much doubt the Framers had health care in mind when the Constitution was written. I suspect they had things like the post office and roads and other infrastructure in mind.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 1:23 AM
I don't believe that "promoting the general welfare" necessarily implies that government has any business in providing healthcare to the indigent
It doesn't necessarily imply, just as it doesn't necessarily preclude.
What is meant by any statute is a matter of its intent at the time it was written
There is no consensus on this in the legal arena. Some believe you should stick to what was meant at the time, and some believe you should adapt to current circumstances. Part of the problem with the former is that it's not always unambiguous what was meant at the time, and the process of trying to figure out what was meant is far from foolproof.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 1:29 AM
"It doesn't necessarily imply, just as it doesn't necessarily preclude. "
Actually, I think it does. The key modifier is "general", which I think implies that government has a responsibility to do those things that benefit all of us (like roads, infrastructure, etc.) rather than those things that promote the welfare of individuals, like health care. Government does have a role IMO in healthcare to the extent that it should deal with things like communicable diseases and the regulation of practicioners that affect the general welfare, but it does not have such a role in assuring that individuals are adequately cared for.
"Part of the problem with the former is that it's not always unambiguous what was meant at the time, and the process of trying to figure out what was meant is far from foolproof."
True, but courts generally interpret statutes based on their legislative intent.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 1:42 AM
"General" can mean something like "public" (as you suggest), or it can mean something like "across the board." Reasonable people can disagree on which definition we should use.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 1:50 AM
"Reasonable people can disagree on which definition we should use."
True, but my definition is the right one.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 1:54 AM
True, but my definition is the right one
Heh heh. That settles it then...>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 1:54 AM
Gordon,D4P,
You've just hit on another point of agreement between us.
We agree that a healthy population promotes the general welfare of America, as prescribed by the Preamble to the Constitution.
I think it follows if all Americans are healthy, not just the fortunate, the greatest welfare results for all.
If sickness and disease are treated universally, America will be a better place for everyone.
And when sickness and disease go untreated in a large segment of the general population, even the fortunate are distressed.
I believe Corporate health care profiteering interferes with the bedrock foundation of medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath.
Corporate health care leaves 46,000,000 Americans, one sixth of our population, with severely limited access to our advanced medical technology.
This is detrimental to the general welfare
Corporate health care addresses only the fortunate, who are already healthier than the unfortunate.
And American health care is the most expensive in the world.
America has been left behind on the general health statistics, by nations that have already implemented universal health care for their citizens.
This affects the ability of the American workforce to compete in the global economy.
I think Government is the most logical, the most efficient and the most effective entity to promote the general health of the population of America, as prescribed by our Constitution.
Gordon, D4P, anyone?
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 2:43 AM
Justin -
I agree with much, but not all of your analysis. I disagree that health care should be a governmental responsibility. I believe we should solve whatever problems there are as individuals and as the church.
The one thing I thought was a good idea, at least in theory, was the republican alternative of allowing people to have individual tax-free health care accounts. These are to be distinguished from the current health care accounts, which are not available to everyone, and don't roll over. I believe the theory is plausible, and is worth trying as a means of bringing down the cost of health care and making catastrophic health care available at a reasonable price to many more people.
The truth is that although I have a very good healthcare plan from the place where I work, I can easily pay the costs of routine (and sometimes not so routine) health care out of pocket. Many can't, but if competition were operative in the healthcare field, causing prices to drop, many more would be. I have health insurance primarily because it provides protection against catastrophic costs, which thankfully have not yet occurred.
If the price of healthcare were less, and if people had an individually-controllable tax sheltered means of paying for health care, I believe that we would be left with a much smaller number of persons who are truly medically indigent. I think that if we were responding to our responsibility to love mercy, we would be able to handle that problem.
I think you're right in that the high cost and limited availability of health care is due mostly from its dominance by a few large carriers.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 2:54 AM
I've heard many stories from Americans requiring emergency treatment while visiting in Canada.
They were astonished after being admitted to Canadian hospitals, treated and released with no charges.
The failure of the American health care system to accomodate the health needs of Daniel's Indian student is a national embarrassment and is multiplied many times over.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 2:56 AM
Well, Justin -
Daniel's student got health care - she just wasn't able to pay for it. The embarassment is that there were apparently no humanitarians available to help her out.>
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2006 3:08 AM
Health care in other countries ("socialized medical care") works... would "tax-free health care accounts" be as effective?>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | November 1, 2006 3:25 AM
Gordon,
Thanks for the quick response.
I thought that the idea of individual tax-free health care accounts was a pitiful band aid for a dysfunctional system.
These accounts would do nothing for the overall inefficiency of our 'pseudo free market' system.
They would just enhance profits of the corporate health care providers.
In fact corporate health care is milking profits from the government programs already in place.
Corporate health care fraud is rampant, causing enormous losses from our taxpayer funded public health programs.
And Republicans focus on the costs of the minimal treatment the unfortunate receive from the system.
Free market dynamics just isn't working at the top level.
I'm not as optimistic as you are that free market dynamics will ever work at the top of a universal health care system.
But there is a place for free markets to operate at the point of health care delivery, in smaller market areas within local communities.
Free markets could be effective in controlling costs at that level.
Government would still be necessary for quality control, though.
Until the large parasitic corporations are gently removed from our national health care system, I don't think there's much potential for overall savings.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 3:31 AM
Anonymous,
"Daniel's student got health care - she just wasn't able to pay for it. The embarassment is that there were apparently no humanitarians available to help her out."
Yes, it's embarrassing in that way but it's also a national embarrassment.
If Daniel's Indian student was studying in Canada, she would have received the care, no questions asked, no anxiety for the lady and no embarrassment having to depend on charity.
Charity is no substitute for a universal health care system delivering health care for all Americans and their official guests.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 3:47 AM
No I mean the vernacular for black people. Some of us call each other brother and sister or brotha and sista.
I think this is racist. If you don't agree, apply the same standard to white people (if whites called each other "brother" or "sister", refering specifically to whites), and it will lead you to same conclusions.>
Posted by: HAC | November 1, 2006 3:54 AM
Sorry, Justin - "anonymous" was me. This thing somewimts loses my name, and I don't always catch it.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:01 AM
Healthcare isn't free in Canada - it's paid for by the taxpayer.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:02 AM
Course, the biggest healthcare issue in the US today is that too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country...>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:09 AM
D4 -
I have no idea what you meant by that>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:11 AM
Gordon -
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B0eFyaM5wo>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:17 AM
Ah, a verbal gaffe... A "botched" statement, if you will...>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2006 4:20 AM
"Gaffe" and "botch" imply abnormal. In Bush's case, that's pretty much par for the course. I'm shocked that his managers ever allow him to deviate from the script.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:22 AM
Well, you hvae to admit he's not boring.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:24 AM
Well, you hvae to admit he's not boring
Yeah, he provides non-stop entertainment. I'm glad I have no obligation to defend him. That must not be the most comfortable position to be in, whether people admit it or not.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:27 AM
"I think this is racist. If you don't agree, apply the same standard to white people (if whites called each other "brother" or "sister", refering specifically to whites), and it will lead you to same conclusions."
--HAC, this is kind of what I was getting at. It seems that Payshun was not referring to the conservative Christians he was speaking about as "brothers and sisters", though if he is a Christian, they are truly that. Saying that only blacks can be "brothers and sisters" (to him) sounds racist to anyone who isn't black, though he might want to clarify that.>
Posted by: jessie | November 1, 2006 4:33 AM
Lighten up - he has both strengths and weaknesses. I support him because I think he gets the security issues generally right. I don't much care for his liberal social policies, but I view the security issues as paramount at the moment.
I've made a few absolutely ridiculous verbal errors myself. I'm sure you have too. It's worth a good laugh at his expense, but somehow with Bush, it always becomes fodder for the ongoing hate campaign by the left.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:35 AM
Jessie,
Sorry, I see what you were saying now. I somehow missed your point, even though I read your comment.>
Posted by: HAC | November 1, 2006 4:40 AM
but somehow with Bush, it always becomes fodder for the ongoing hate campaign by the left
Perhaps because the "leader of the free world" makes himself sound like a moron...? The guy has a very poor grasp of his native language. Defend that if you want, but it's obviously less than ideal.
BTW: Do you think George W. Bush is more intelligent than you are (setting aside his privileged access to information you and I can't access)? I can honestly say there has never been a moment where I have felt that Bush was more intelligent than I am. I can't think of any ideas he has come up with that I felt were new or innovative in any way. Bomb the bad guys, cut taxes, increase deficits...pretty much anyone could do that. Is this really the best our country has to put forth...?>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:44 AM
"Perhaps because the "leader of the free world" makes himself sound like a moron...? "
Perhaps you missed Sen. Kerry's comments today?>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2006 4:56 AM
Bush is a very bad public speaker. It makes me cringe sometimes, especially on things I agree with him on. I don't think that means he's not smart, though. Besides, wisdom is more important than smarts when it comes to leadership.
Also, just because something isn't new or innovative doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Sometimes good leadership requires repeating things that work. Regardless, I don't think Bush is any less innovative than Clinton or his father were.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 1, 2006 5:02 AM
My boss isn't more intelligent than I am either.
I very much doubt that Bush is stupid. He's just not very articulate. Sometimes I think some of that is intentional.
But I don't demand that the president be a genius or that he have a lot of great innovative ideas. I just want him to get the important policies right. And at least in terms of foreign policy and security issues, I think Bush does.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 5:03 AM
If he's so dumb, how do you think he managed to win a few debates with both Kerry and Gore?>
Posted by: jessie | November 1, 2006 5:03 AM
timks -
Regarding a minimum wage.
Actually I go further than that. It should be a living wage, meaning that someone working fulltime should be able to support a family of four at the poverty level for this country. The estimates for that range from 8 to 12 dollars an hour, so many communities have set it at 10. If you have a larger family, or are not satisfied with poverty level, then you would have to work two jobs, or get training or education that would raise your income. But it seems to me that anyone working fulltime should make at least poverty level wages.>
Posted by: Blue | November 1, 2006 5:06 AM
Perhaps you missed Sen. Kerry's comments today?
Your logic appears to be "Given what John Kerry said today, the President of the US doesn't have to be able to speak English very well."
I'm not sure I buy that. But regardless, I don't care about his language abilities PER SE, but they are consistent with other indications I've picked up on regarding his overall intelligence. I don't think he's particularly bright, and I think he has gotten where he has primarily because of his father. Is he the only one to do that? No. But am I impressed by him? No. I would have to think that Republicans would have preferred a better candidate as well, though of course they won't admit that. (I would also have to think that Democrats would have preferred a better candidate than Kerry. I remember thinking during the election "Are Bush and Kerry really the best we can come up with?")
It's fine if you like Bush's policies, but I defy anyone to defend his intelligence relative to other political leaders in this country and abroad. That's not to say a President needs to be intelligent. It doesn't take much to simply follow a party line and do what your advisors tell you to do.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:10 AM
If he's so dumb, how do you think he managed to win a few debates with both Kerry and Gore?
Who said Bush won the debates? The fact that he "won" the elections doesn't mean he won the debates. Kerry sounded much more intelligent than Bush. If I were a Bush supporter, I don't think I could have even watched Bush up there. He was clearly overmatched. Not to mention the wire he wore during the first debate with Kerry...
Don't get me wrong. I really couldn't have cared less about Kerry, but to think Bush won the debates is ridiculous. Do you really think voters based their decisions on what happened in those debates?
Here's a fun little clip from one of the debates. I love Bush's use of the word "exaggeration." Hilarious.
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:16 AM
"Your logic appears to be "Given what John Kerry said today, the President of the US doesn't have to be able to speak English very well."
Actually, I was joking because Kerry tried to play off his line as a gaffe, when he clearly meant what he said.
I think Bush managed to break even in debated by virtue of the soft bigotry of low expectations. That and two utterly unremarkable adversaries (see above).>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2006 5:21 AM
"Healthcare isn't free in Canada - it's paid for by the taxpayer."
Are you expecting any credit for that observation, Gordon?
Of course health care in Canada is paid for by the taxpayers.
Health care in America is paid for by the taxpayers, too and by the patients in the form of health insurance premiums, and the patients employer in the form of employee benefits, and by the patient in out of pocket costs for what the health plan does not cover.
Health insurance providers are deadbeats when it comes to meeting their obligations to their customers and the service is terrible, too.
When you add it up, the total cost per capita to the taxpayer/patient is substantially higher in America than the total cost to the taxpayer/patient in Canada.
If you look at total costs, American health care is the most expensive in the world.
And America is by no means the healthiest nation in the world.
This is how the inefficiency of America's health care system has to be measured.
Don't forget the health insurance
corporations are cherry picking the least risky patients.
And they don't even cover 46,000,000 American citizens.
What a sweet deal for the corporate health care industry.
What a lousy deal for the American taxpayer/patient.
Gordon, I think you're blinded by "free market" ideology.
Follow the money.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 5:23 AM
Actually, I was joking because Kerry tried to play off his line as a gaffe, when he clearly meant what he said
One of the things I appreciated about Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace on FOX was his refusal to back down when confronted. It's refreshing to see someone stand up for themselves rather than cave in to the pressure and retract what they said or reinvent what they did.
I would have had more respect for Bush if he would have acknowledged being "stay the course" all along and acknowledged criticizing those who called for "adjustments in tactics." To lie and say "We've never been stay the course" was both insulting and disappointing.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:28 AM
Gordon," I just want him to get the important policies right. And at least in terms of foreign policy and security issues, I think Bush does."
I think you're dead wrong, Gordon.
Bush screwed up America's foreign policy and our security.
The world hates us now.
Bush has made the world far more dangerous.
and our domestic security has been neglected under Bush.
.>
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2006 5:35 AM
Jessie, "If he's so dumb, how do you think he managed to win a few debates with both Kerry and Gore?"
Are you kidding us, Jessie?
Bush lost all of his debates, even with handlers talking to him through the wireless receiver under his jacket.
His press conferences are all staged, with softball questions coming from stenographers.
Bush's handlers won't dare allow him in the same room with real journalists asking real questions.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 5:51 AM
Bush's handlers won't dare allow him in the same room with real journalists asking real questions
Like I said, I'm surprised they ever allow him to deviate from the script. Though, I suppose, he might be doing so against their will...>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:55 AM
justintime and others -
Sorry I'm late into this discussion due to Halloween festivities, but I could not disagree more with your rationale for universal health care. I wish I could address each of your points, but the lateness of the hour prevents that. I will throw out a few things that I hope will at least generate discussion.
Economist Arnold Kling addressed this issue better than I possibly could. http://techcentralstation.com/082305A.html
His conclusion is that the biggest problem with our health care system is our medical care culture, or the way medicine is practiced.
He also disputes the assertion seen here that the poor just aren't getting health care.
I hope you will read his article with an open mind. I hasten to add this in no way exempts us as Christians to see that the underprivileged are cared for in our society, but it may cause us to rethink conventional or mainstream solutions.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 6:13 AM
Blue - The country is not monolithic. Economic activity is not uniform everywhere. Some states or communities may be booming while others are suffering from recessio