The question arises as to how the Catholic Church fits in with the religious right. There have been many well-funded attempts to make the Church's social doctrine a mere hand-maiden of laissez-faire capitalism, but this effort simply does not square with the Church's historic teaching. Pope Benedict XVI s recent trip to Brazil has highlighted once again the question of the Catholic Church s position on matters of social justice. The Pope, reflecting historic Church teaching, rejected both Communism and radical Capitalisnm repeating the message given for over one hundred years, beginning with Leo XIII s encyclical Rerum Novarum.
In order to recapture a proper understanding of what the Church actually teaches, I have just published a book, The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace, which explicates the Church's teachings both in terms of theory and of actual business practice, for theory without practice is useless. Forgive the shameless self-promotion, but it is high-time for a counter-attach (as readers of this blog well know) not only on the distortion of the gospel message in Protestantism, but within American Catholicism as well. John C. M daille
"A dead thing can go with the stream... but only a living thing can go against it."

-G. K. Chesterton http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm john@medaille.com

Posted by: John M daille | June 4, 2007 4:57 PM

I would be curious to see a breakdown of the quotes/interviews/mentions in categories like: positive mention, negative mention, response to criticism, response to desired legislation, response to undesired legislation, etc. Otherwise we can't gather a clear enough picture to know whose advantage this is to. IMO, it's the nonreligious liberals who receive the advantage from a trend of negatively mentioning religious conservatives (now synonymous with "all conservatives") and ignoring religious liberals.

Posted by: Elmo | June 4, 2007 5:10 PM

I think Elmo makes a good point. Also I think one of the major reasons that conservative Christians are over represented on the news is that the media has a very narrow view of what political issues are important to Christians. The media sees things like abortion, gay marriage, and other hot button issues like that as the only political issues Christians care about. So when they need a conservative point of view on these matters they turn to a conservative Christian. To find a liberal view on these issues they don't need to turn to a progressive Christian because there are plently of non-religious leaders out there willing to provide that view. NARAL, People for the American Way, etc. On the issues that progressive Christians seem to care about -poverty, anti-war, social justice, etc, the media doesn't need to turn to Christians either. They can find plenty of vocal secular pundits willing to spout off. The bottom line is the media is lazy and progressive Christians don't differentiate themselves enough from secular liberals to get noticed.

Posted by: Ross | June 4, 2007 6:04 PM

journalism on popular television is dead. it is no longer journalism, just entertainers discussing whatever issue gets the highest ratings to grab the highest ad revenue. take a look at the target demographic for the show & there will be your bias, i simply do not think there is a 'media bias' either way, unless you mean 'biased toward what sells,' & i think the concept of 'what sells' is grossly limited (look at american idol for instance - turns out the sexy bubblegum sensations & crude hip-hop debauchery thrust upon us is not what the consuming public votes for). the idiots are running the control room from a content perspective, & have no interest in trying to sway public opinion or perception that 'conservative' & 'religion' are not the same, though exceptions like tonight's pentecost 07 on cnn are always welcome!
i empathize as well with what brian has said about moving away from a conservative mindset & feeling like one has no spiritual home - this was my situation several years ago & it took moving away devoid of my home religion after a mutually agreed seperation, & stumbling into a spirit-filled, bible-preaching (yes bible-preaching, not doctrine-preaching) methodist church for me to find my way back to a spiritual home. it has also taken a recent openness of the democratic party toward open faith for me to find a somewhat political home nationally speaking, though that is not a problem w/ the southern dem party (or anything southern!).
i have spent the better part of my adult life trying to tell people 'it's ok to be progressive & christian, this faith tradition is so much richer & more diverse than we are normally exposed to! it's ok to read the bible & take away from it a concept of God & discipleship different from that preached to you your whole life!' (this is a real dilemma in the south)

Posted by: nad2 | June 4, 2007 6:54 PM

The Religious spokesperson in this blog appears to think it is something to desire ? The attention is almost all negative . How many people here take a view without knowing a person they are narrow on the right ? How many on the right take the view that because your on the Left ,Christ matters less then your issues . I see that . Am I looking for that from someone constantly telling me I am narrow . ?
I don't see how the Gospel is really compatible with politics, I can see how your Faith defintely can cause you to vote a certain way . Civil Rights yes , and obvious attempts of government to undermine the respect and dignity of another .

Obviously going to blogs of the left one can see a clear dislike of religion of any kind . I mean that is so obvious . The people promoting that view have many in their ranks that view religion as bondage , a cruth, a handicap to getting things done .
I don't see how Christ is given the glory in any of these political parties ?
Something about being separate from the world ?
Liberal churches are loosing numbers , growing smaller , yet gaining political power according to this blog. Whcih is more important ? More political power or more people knowing Christ ?
Binded By Might , Why the religious Right Can't Save America should have a re version dedicated to the left . ,
Jim Wallis and company is missing the good thing happening in the Evangelical Church . People are not becoming more concerned about using the church for his or my political views , people are becoming more concerned about using the church as the church .
The world has won the political debates in the media . If you ask me , socialism is coming . Making someone give something to you that they worked for or did not work for is not my idea of Christianity . Nor does Faith prosper in cultures where the government becomes the source of all our needs . Promoting a covetous political machine preying on the poor to promote political power is a neat trick . Nor is allowing a corporation to gain excessive profits at the cost of cheap labor and tax breaks anything to promote a Religious political Plank along side of .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | June 4, 2007 8:12 PM

Binded By Might , Why the religious Right Can't Save America should have a re version dedicated to the left . , There can't be, because there is no such massive organization on the left -- no Jerry Falwell, no James Dobson, no Pat Robertson. If there were the right would use it as a bogeyman. Liberal churches are loosing numbers, growing smaller, yet gaining political power according to this blog. Which is more important? More political power or more people knowing Christ? Actually, that depends on what you consider "[losing] numbers ... yet gaining political power." Theologically liberal churches are indeed losing, but "conservative," evangelical churches are becoming more rounded and grounded in Biblical truth rather than right-wing sound bites. That's a healthy development. I actually consider Jim Wallis a theological conservative. Media Matters is a left-wing organization created, in part, to counteract the reputation that the typical media outlet is liberal. Therefore, they will craft a survey that yields their desired response. It might help you to remember that its founder is a former conservative journalist who knows first-hand how conservative media work. It is actually so thorough in its research and analysis that several months ago someone from the right-wing Media Research Center refused to appear on the program with a Media Matters researcher. And go ask Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly about Media Matters -- they will puke.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 4, 2007 9:04 PM

" I actually consider Jim Wallis a theological conservative." On what basis? I haven't really heard him say much about Christ, other than to note which political positions he would support.

Posted by: Kevin S. | June 4, 2007 11:12 PM

Yes, coverage of religion & public affairs is lousy; as is coverage of religion in global affairs and in the culture. The Media Matters report looked at 10 conservative and 10 progressive voices (and yes, Catholics are largely invisible). And only a few of those make up the bulk of the religious commentary measured. And the bulk of that commentary comes from persons whose everyday job is to push a political voice into the media--mostly conservative. When a different voice, i.e. Jim Wallis, decided to push his voice with a new media angle (i.e. there is a new religious voice being ignored); the media accepted it as an update to their 25-year manufactured story of a Religious Right. And his numbers bounced right up. Media Matters basically argues we will have better coverage of Religion and Politics if we get about three more Jim Wallis' who get quoted more. Which means that they accept the line being pushed that there are people on all sides of the political equation who are religious and hence should be quoted. Where did the secularism come from which apparently has given rise to the need to project religious voices back into public dialogue????? Right or left??? And why is secularism not considered a matter of faith? For some reason humanity seems to have this inclination to go our own way apart from God. We would all do well to keep all of our affairs in complete submission to the Lord of all. To me this is the gift Evangelicals could give to our political landscape. I feel absolutely no problem engaging the likes of Jim Wallis or James Dobson, or much more progressive voices if they are genuinely submitted to God When we submit, governance is just a matter of stewardship and working out agreed strategies to manage our affairs. When we don't submit, political power is everything. It ceases to be a matter of mutual responsibility to govern as stewards. In a land of 300,000 churches and roughly 270,000,000 citizens who consider themselves religious, we have about ten persons providing religion tainted responses to public policy. Very few of the above numbers would consider themselves represented by these 10 voices. And Media Matters is concerned on the percentages.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | June 5, 2007 2:02 AM

"Read the book "God's Politics" sometime." I read it when it first came out.

Posted by: Kevin S. | June 5, 2007 5:55 AM

Mick Sheldon: "Liberal churches are loosing numbers, growing smaller..." Having larger and larger numbers does not, in and of itself, confirm God's blessing is upon a right-wing ministery. In fact, if you believe Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, it's quite the opposite. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7:13-14)

Posted by: Robert Meyer | June 5, 2007 11:23 AM

It seems to me that many of the media people involved in covering where religion and politics converge demostrate a lack of knowledge of the varieties of Christian faiths. In too many cases the fundalmentalist Christian is easier to categorize because his doctrine is easier to understand. But Christians whose spiritual life take in a much wider field of understanding sounds complicated. It is harder to present that position in a short period of time. No offence intended but the latter Christian usually sounds too secular.
The media is, I believe, under-reporting the faith of the conservative Christian who advocates the right to life. This Christian also take into consideration poverty and other ideas presented in the Sermon on the Mount.
We have to stop blaming each other for the fall out from present day media reporting.

Posted by: Maurice Nickerson | June 5, 2007 1:52 PM

"The consequences of this association are, no doubt, complex. One of them would be that when young (or older) people question and perhaps move away from the conservative political ideology of their family and church, they may assume their only alternative is to become secular and abandon their faith as well. I meet people like this by the scores every month, and I have a special concern for them." Here Brian is right on. As a 30-something raised in the conservative evangelical community, I know many people exactly like Brian describes. I came close to being one myself. Without McLaren, Wallis, Campolo and Sider, I don't know if I would still be an evangelical Christian.

Posted by: Rachel | June 5, 2007 4:01 PM

But when Wallis has done such a good job of dividing the Christian Community by blasting Fawell, Dobson, Kennedy and Graham. No, not Graham -- in fact, elsewhere on this blog he paid homage to him. And BTW, Graham once told Falwell to "shut up." Besides, THEY are the divisive ones because their "ministries" depend on division; Wallis, on the other hand, will work with anyone, right, left or center, to build the Kingdom of God. To me, the most important chapter of the book "God's Politics" was his reconciliation with Campus Crusade's Bill Bright.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 5, 2007 4:18 PM

Rachel | Homepage | 06.05.07 - 10:12 am | #
Rick Nowlin | 06.05.07 - 10:23 am | #
Some of the articles months ago lumped Graham with the others. Wallis article on Graham was basically a puff piece here on Sojo. I think that Wallis needs to reconsile himself with many in the Christian community. I have look at the others sites and have a very few occasions read something about Wallis on their sites. For the most part they were quoting him from one of his talks. Wallis has been the one driving the wedge and creating the seperation between conservative and liberal. If you read between the lines with Wallis, I believe his premis is conservatives say "the poor will always be with you" and that is why they do nothing. It is conservative denominations that give more per person to charities than liberals. (google it) Yes the poor will always be with us - so will the sick, mentally challenged, etc. But we are doing something about them. Wallis is the Fawell of the left - there is the balance. I am currently struggling through 'God Politics' (a very arrogant title I might add) and about ready to ask neuro_nurse what drug I can take prior to reading it. My son read it and then used it as a door stop - not sure he was wrong in his assessment. There is much I can agree with Wallis about to a certain extent, but it is his retoric about conservatives and conservative thinkers that I have read their books and articles about and agreed with that causes me to take a step back. This is one are that 'Billy' Graham got right and several others got wrong. You don't publically blast fellow believers in print or broadcast. Yes - there are conservatives that did not understand this and have suffered because of it. Wallis condems them and then does the samething on his site. No Fawell, Dobson, Robertson have not been correct all the time and that is why I have not gone on record as publically supporting them - but I have not ripped them like has been on by the authors on this site. I have made mention where we agree of we are on different paths. Wish Wallis and Co. would do the same. Have a great day .

Posted by: moderatelad | June 5, 2007 5:29 PM

I have look at the others sites and have a very few occasions read something about Wallis on their sites. For the most part they were quoting him from one of his talks. Wallis has been the one driving the wedge and creating the seperation between conservative and liberal. Wrong, absolutely wrong -- it is the conservatives who always have driven the wedge between "liberal" and "conservative" for the sake of their faux authority and Wallis is hot only because he's addressing that now. Wallis has led the Sojourners community since the early 1970s, before the "religious right" came on the scene. Besides, he has never had the money that Falwell, Robertson, Dobson et al do, nor is he on Christian TV or radio. Thus, to say that he is a mirror image of them butts heads with history.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 5, 2007 6:37 PM

Rick Nowlin | 06.05.07 - 12:42 pm | #
Like I said - yes there are conservatives out there that have driven the wedge but Wallis has picked up the hammer and has done a very good job of advancing that wedge too. That he does not have the money - your point is? Maybe he is saying things that do not resonate with the mojority of the Christian community? I said that conservatives give more than liberals - this has been talked about on several radio and tv programs. That he does not have a radio program or a tv show, I don't know - lack of vision? In this day and age of cable - it is not that expensive to get started. No - Wallis and Robertson are the personalities that balance out each other. I have not supported Robertson publically and I have Wallis under the same paradyme. In many ways I am fighting the conservative in me to get to the center so we can get something done. But history has taught me that I can not make a move until the other side makes a move. I can take a step but then they have to take an equal step, then I can take another. Sadly - I have rarely found the liberal on one side of an issue with me that will keep in step with me. So - we stand our ground. This is where I stand until God tells me - through friends and collgues that I need to move. I hope someday to find someone here at Sojo - hasn't happened yet. Blessings - .

Posted by: moderatelad | June 5, 2007 7:55 PM

Like I said - yes there are conservatives out there that have driven the wedge but Wallis has picked up the hammer and has done a very good job of advancing that wedge too. That he does not have the money -- your point is? Sorry, but you're wrong -- it was strictly a conservative wedge, as that segment of the political divide brooks dissent from absolutely no one; you won't see any conservative set up a blog such as this because that kind fears criticism. The money issue is important because you have to find a way to keep it rolling in, which is why conservatives spend a lot of time screaming about abortion and gay marriage. Well, those days ended with the 2006 general election. Sadly - I have rarely found the liberal on one side of an issue with me that will keep in step with me. That could be because of your commitment to conservatism, which many of us perceive as a large segment of the problem to be addressed. Bring a conservative agenda to my neighborhood or that where my church is located, for example, and you will be laughed out of them because it not only doesn't solve the problems they face but often caused them. You simply cannot come into a place and insist that people do things your way without understanding the specific challenges they face, which means your pet agendas may face adjustment. Now, conservatives say that the poor should be helped without government assistance of any kind. Diaconally, I would agree, but if government policies made or kept them poor in the first place -- which is often the case -- such policies need to be changed. That is the whole premise of the "Vote Out Poverty" campaign; there are people who actually want to keep the poor poor, and the Scripture (mostly in the Prophets) address that evil.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 5, 2007 8:21 PM

"But most of you seem very intent on 'waging the war'. Well, you all win. All of you are right. I think that is your reward." I have no interest in waging a war, and I honestly don't think Sojourners does either.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 5, 2007 8:39 PM

And NB: Rick wasn't talking about his church, he was talking about his neighborhood. If his church is doing its job, it's an island of sanity by comparison.

Posted by: Another nonymous | June 5, 2007 8:43 PM

So which is it Rick, is the Christian left tolerant of dissent or isn't it? Irrelevant. It means that, in this case, the conservatives have shown that they just don't know what they're talking about. When you make an argument using ideas that have never worked in practice you have no credibility. Just to be clear: my problem isn't that liberals won't be easily persuaded by conservative arguments. I'll freely admit that I'm not easily sold either. But I wouldn't laugh you out of my church -- your own words -- and then pat myself on the back for being tolerant. Droll. Two decades ago I likely would have been run out of your church for saying the same things I'm saying now, which I was. To be laughed out of an area means for the most part that someone is not willing to have meaningful discussion on a topic. I believe I could hold my own given the chance and that all would respect the other person. No, as I said above, what that means is that you open your mouth and continually stick your foot in it because you have no idea what's actually happening when you think you do. That's why, for example, African-Americans have precious little respect for the political right. Rick wasn't talking about his church, he was talking about his neighborhood. If his church is doing its job, it's an island of sanity by comparison. Actually, I was talking about both my neighborhood and the neighborhood where my church is located. But you are absolutely right in calling my church "an island of sanity" in that 'hood.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 5, 2007 9:21 PM

But then he describes the likely response that conservatives would get in the neighborhood around his church -- we'd be laughed out. Correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is he sees nothing wrong if we were to get precisely this reception. If I have to explain it again: Your views would be seen, especially to those who have "been around," as those of a person with very little understanding, insight or wisdom as to how things actually work. You see, we who are not conservatives know how conservatism works, even though you don't want or seem to believe that, and it is precisely why we reject it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 5, 2007 9:34 PM

Wolverine -- Just be advised that, when it comes to arguing over the merits of conservative ideology, you will never win with me. I know far too much.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 5, 2007 10:51 PM

Ross -- You're welcome. :-) All kidding aside, however, it always seems to come to this and I'm a bit sensitive as it is because I actually am in the media and tired of being attacked for being "liberal."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 5, 2007 11:46 PM

First off Moderatelad how is Wallis the Falwell of the left? What has he said that can be compared to anything that Falwell did? another Wolvie quote: But then he describes the likely response that conservatives would get in the neighborhood around his church -- we'd be laughed out. Correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is he sees nothing wrong if we were to get precisely this reception. It looks to me like there's a big double-standard here: you conservatives need to listen to us, but we don't need to listen to you. Me: To be fair neither of you are listening well to each other and both of you have points even though I find myself agreeing w/ Rick more. He just doesn't take his critique of conservative ideology far enough.
I guess my point is that you all are not condemned and neither him or I can decide where you will be on judgement day (whenever that is.) I guess the other liberal, progressive or left leaning folks on this blog find the fear mongering (about gays) annoying, the lack of compassion for them lame and that's just the easy issue because it came up in the last couple of days.
What you all don't understand about some of our ideology is that we understand that everyone (government, individual and other) must be involved in helping the poor. You all want the church to shoulder the burden alone and the truth is it can't. It's not a lack of faith on my part it's the reality of the situation. We need each other, secular, athiest, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu... black, white to effect the type of change that can transform a society. If you doubt that look at the Civil Rights era. Even though it was a predominately Christian movement, many athiests and counter cultural folks fought and died to change things. I guess that's where much of our disagreement starts. p

Posted by: Payshun | June 6, 2007 1:30 AM

Wolvie said: Very few of us seriously think that the government has no role whatsoever in assisting the poor. But we do believe that as a general rule the church (or religious organizations in general) should take the lead in this area and not government. Me: That's where we disagree. I don't care who takes the lead. I really don't just as long as the work gets done. That's something I really don't understand. Why do you all want the church to take the lead on these issues when it has a very checkered history in doing so? I am not saying the government as any better but I am curious. p

Posted by: Payshun | June 6, 2007 2:54 AM

moderatelad: "Wallis has been the one driving the wedge and creating the seperation between conservative and liberal."
You give Wallis too much credit. It was the Lord Jesus himself who was "one driving the wedge and creating the seperation" between the money lovers and the God lovers.
moderatelad: "If you read between the lines with Wallis, I believe his premis is conservatives say "the poor will always be with you" and that is why they do nothing." I'm not familiar with Wallis or his enemies, but Mark 14:7 (really verses 3 to 9) is out of context with any issue of giving or not giving to the poor. Jesus commands us to do that many places elsewhere, it is that the woman somehow knew that Jesus was near his crucifixion. That should be clear, even if one's only knowledge of the story is from listening to "Jesus Christ Superstar."
moderatelad: "It is conservative denominations that give more per person to charities than liberals. (google it) Yes the poor will always be with us - so will the sick, mentally challenged, etc. But we are doing something about them."
I have been paralyzed from a stroke 29 years ago (I was a grad student in college), but my conservative church and my conservative family (with the exception of my mom) never helped me. They were good at preaching the 'work ethic' to me but I had to do it all myself; from relearning how to talk and walk (with a cane) again, to getting my degree, to getting numerous jobs to support myself. They are proud of me, but they will have a little surprise at the Last Judgement (Matt 25:31-46). [rant is over] There are a couple of issues that you raised here that I feel I should comment on though. 1 (the small issue): To "give more per person" doesn't tell the whole story, the rich people who gave large sums (I'm guessing the 10% tithe of OT teaching) were actually giving less than the widow's 2 mites (100% of her money) in Mark 12:41-44.
2 (the large issue): The idea of 'its my money that I'm giving, so isn't that nice of me' is totally contrary to the biblical concept of stewardship which says that people don't 'own' anything but are merely 'managers' (for a finite time) of what only God truly owns.
moderatelad: "Wallis is the Fawell of the left - there is the balance." I am quite fond of Lao Tzu as a writer, but a Taoist kind of "balance" is alien to the NT thinking. That "balance" reminds me of the letter to the church at Laodicea, criticizing them for being "neither cold nor hot" (Rev 3:14-22).

Posted by: Robert Meyer | June 6, 2007 10:43 AM

Payshun, Well, we do care about who takes the lead, because church and government are very different institutions with very different strengths and weaknesses. Government is ultimately based on force. The church is based on grace. Lord knows we haven't always shown that, but even if applied inconsistently, grace is better than force in terms of acts of mercy and charity. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 6, 2007 3:08 PM

Well, we do care about who takes the lead, because church and government are very different institutions with very different strengths and weaknesses. Government is ultimately based on force. The church is based on grace. Lord knows we haven't always shown that, but even if applied inconsistently, grace is better than force in terms of acts of mercy and charity. Wolverine Now we get to the heart of this. I have no faith in the people to do the right thing when the majority find some benefit in immoral activity. Mind you this only applies to our country and I don't think this should be used for others but I think the government sometimes has to force people to do the right thing and when it comes to helping the poor and destroying the underclass it is going to take government intervention to help. Only the government has the tools and facilities for massive food distribution, education access, protections...
p

Posted by: Payshun | June 6, 2007 7:00 PM

Payshun, The problem with all that is: in a democracy a government of, by and for the people is going to be very much like the people. There's no guarantee that the ethics of a public servant are going to be any higher than that of the public at large.
You want the government to force people to do the right thing, but that same government can just as easily force people to do the wrong thing. Even if that wrong is not as hideous as the gulag or Darfur, even if it's simply a matter of bureaucratic infighting leading to waste -- waste is still wrong even if it's done by authority of the State. Second, you see this as primarily a material thing, a matter of tools and facilities. Certainly these things matter but there's a spiritual dimension that the state is going to really struggle with. The church can build buildings, but can the state save souls? Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 6, 2007 7:14 PM

Oh and I forgot to say that yes people are inherently evil and your point has a point but I find it better to accept that things would be a crapshoot than to just let things keep going as they are. Eventually those positions change and justice comes where as the other way it probably won't. p

Posted by: Payshun | June 6, 2007 7:34 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote: Most people are poor because they can't get the resources they need to make their own way, and much of that is politically-oriented. That's really what conservatives object to when they complain about "welfare." Actually, what we objected to about welfare was that it was poorly run and prone to create emotional dependency, but the welfare debate by and large is over. Actually, our main gripe today is lousy union-run public schools that fail to provide students with the knowledge they need to provide for themselves in the real world. To a lesser extent we also object to poorly thought-through labor regulations that are prone to freeze unskilled and unconnected workers out of the job market, preventing them from gaining valuable work experience. These are two features of our political system that prevent the poor from getting at the resources they need, and wittingly or not the left, Sojourners included, refuses to confront them. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 6, 2007 10:33 PM

Rick said: That's not what I was talking about. Most "Great Society" programs, truth be told, actually worked the way they were supposed to, but the "economic elite" opposed the idea of their resources benefiting anyone but themselves, same as when FDR started the "New Deal" (people don't realize how much the right wing of that day despised him). What got cut long before direct cash payments were educational loans and job-training programs that really helped the poor to get good jobs formerly unavailable to them. Why? Because they fully intended to keep people down -- and blame someone else in the process! Most blacks know this, and that's why they don't want to hear anything from the political right. Me: Welllll, can I get an Amen?.... wolverine: Actually, our main gripe today is lousy union-run public schools that fail to provide students with the knowledge they need to provide for themselves in the real world. Me: This issue is complicated to be reduced to a soundbite. The Unions are not the problem it's a lot bigger than that and it deals w/ us a society. Wolverine: To a lesser extent we also object to poorly thought-through labor regulations that are prone to freeze unskilled and unconnected workers out of the job market, preventing them from gaining valuable work experience. Me: Still more complicated than this. Wolvie: To a lesser extent we also object to poorly thought-through labor regulations that are prone to freeze unskilled and unconnected workers out of the job market, preventing them from gaining valuable work experience. These are two features of our political system that prevent the poor from getting at the resources they need, and wittingly or not the left, Sojourners included, refuses to confront them. Me: Because those are straw men that have next to nothing to do w/ upward mobility. Us lefties know that.
p

Posted by: Payshun | June 7, 2007 2:50 AM

Payshun, You say that things are more complicated than I describe them. Well duh! These are quickie comments on a blog, not 80 page GAO reports. At any rate, it's not enough to just say "It's more complicated than that". You have any particular complications in mind? I'd be happy to work through all the complexities with you, but for one-paragraph summaries I stand by what I wrote: education unions are a big chunk of what's wrong with public education, and a lot of labor regulations have the effect of cutting the poor out of entry-level jobs. Wolverine

Posted by: HASH(0x1199be24) | June 7, 2007 3:04 AM

Now you talk about educational loans and job training. That's not welfare. It sure was, in their book! I'm not an expert on higher ed funding, but I do know a thing or two about labor and employment, including workforce development, and I know that a lot of it is widely considered dubious in value, and not just among us Fox News watchers. The very non-partisan General Accounting Office issued several reports in the mid nineties (links available on request) that questioned the effectiveness of federal job training programs and called for an overhaul. Job Corps in particular came under close questioning. Probably more because of potential waste and fraud than anything else. But then, there's more of that in private industry than with government programs. I do know a few things about educational grants, and those were definitely cut beginning in 1981. There is a strong case to be made that cutting them and replacing them with private charity -- even at half the spending level -- is better for all involved, including the recipients. Earth to Wolverine: Charity is NOT THE ISSUE! People need to find a way to make their own way in the world and not depend on the good graces of private benefactors who desire only control (which is why the right likes that). The issue of removal of resources from poor communities, such as banks and businesses you don't even address, which is why "private charity" is a red herring.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 7, 2007 3:36 AM

Pittsburgh, we have a problem. Please -- you don't live here and probably never even visited. Rick, what magic is it that ensures the purity of heart of government workers? That prevents them from exploiting dependency themselves? WILL YOU GET OFF THAT TRIP????? As for the "removal of resources from poor communities", why don't you tell me more about that, instead of griping about my failure to anticipate what you would like to talk about. Mind reading is especially tough from space. Ever hear of something called "white flight"? Back in the 1950s and '60s most center cities emptied out its wealthier white residents who lit out for the suburbs, depressing property values in the places they left and taking their economic and social resources with them -- and with it a resentment for the poorer folks that replaced them in the 'hood. You see, those suburbanites know full well that they're privileged and want to stay that way, and conservatism was designed -- yes, designed -- to appeal to those folks. It takes what my pastor called "the breaking of spiritual strongholds" to deal with that kind of myopia.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 7, 2007 4:47 AM

Rick, As a matter of fact, I spent a couple lovely days in Pittsburgh, even caught a couple games at PNC Park. As for the "Trip" I'm supposed to get off of, I'm sorry, but human nature is fallen both inside and outside of government. The reference to magic may have been a bit snarky, but otherwise it's a fair question, so I'll rephrase it for you: Why are you so certain that government workers will not fall for the same temptation that private charities face, that of manipulating beneficiaries for their own ends? Now, please answer the question. As for white flight, Rick, I'm from Detroit. As in South of Eight Mile. Believe me, I know about white flight. I saw it with my own two eyes. My dad worked for the city and was obligated to remain there long after most of our white neighbors had left thanks to residency. By the time I left for college, the neighborhood had been 80 to 90 percent black for several years, drug dealers had taken over one end of a park a couple blocks away, and a stray bullet from a gang "incident" had left a hole beneath our kitchen window. Now my being white did confer some advantages. It was a bit easier for me to do business in the suburbs without getting hassled, but that by itself didn't exactly get me in all the right country clubs -- that takes green as well as white, if you get my drift. Being white also complicated our relations with a lot of other folks on the block. And while there were neighborhoods in Detroit that were even rougher I got a lot closer view of urban hell than a whole lot of spoiled white brat liberals from deepest darkest suburbia who have curried your favor by repeating your narrative without the slightest clue what they're talking about. Are we clear? Now, let me tell you about black flight. Middle-class African Americans are bailing out of Detroit and moving to the suburbs. Are they bigots too? Do they hate poor people? Or maybe they have just gotten tired of a depressed economy, cruddy schools, non-existent police, and random bullet holes that are the consequence of inept government led by a race-baiting political class that inflicted the city for twenty years. As for the whites who left earlier, are you sure that they all left because of racial animosity? Isn't it at least possible that some of them saw what was coming and decided to protect their own families? Could you blame them if they did? Now Detroit may have finally started to rebound, in no small part because of a new mayor by the name of Kwame Kilpatrick. Now Mayor Kilpatrick is hardly a conservative, but he has done a few very valuable things: he has demanded accountability from his government and started to get it. He has accepted the reality of the free economy and stopped treating it as a vast conspiracy created by The Man to rip off The People. And he has rejected the too-easy way out of using white racism as a blanket excuse for all incompetence, stupidity, corruption or crime in his town. Has there been racism in Detroit? You betcha. I've told you about some of that in the past. And yes, some of the scars from that remain to this day. But its way too simple to blame whites for everything that has ever gone wrong in African-American communities. Blacks have free will, just like whites. They bear the mark of original sin, just like whites. They can choose to do right or wrong, just like whites. And some of them have chosen to do wrong, just like a lot of whites. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 7, 2007 6:10 AM

Why are you so certain that government workers will not fall for the same temptation that private charities face, that of manipulating beneficiaries for their own ends? For reasons I have already mentioned, this question isn't germane to the discussion. As for the whites who left earlier, are you sure that they all left because of racial animosity? Isn't it at least possible that some of them saw what was coming and decided to protect their own families? Could you blame them if they did? It actually wasn't that way at all. You see, due to a housing shortage after World War II, the feds made loans available for new homes (rather than rehabbing old ones), most of which were on former farmland -- but those loans were unavailable to blacks. That's the beginning of the story.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 7, 2007 2:47 PM

Rick, As to white flight, I'm not sure I follow where you're going with this, but I take it that what you're saying is that the roots lie in the decision to subsidize construction of new homes, combined with racial discrimination in the granting of loans. Okay, that's plausible, but I hope you realize that you've conceded that a government program contributed to white flight. To be perfectly frank, I don't think that federal housing subsidies were a deciding factor though. The bottom line after WWII was a combination of returning servicemen and the oncoming baby boom meant that there was a need for a lot of new housing. Furthermore, because the transition from a rural to an urban/industrial economy was still ongoing, a lot of the housing stock we had was in the wrong places. So even without government subsidies, there was probably going to be new homes built in the suburbs anyway, and private racism being what it was, without any pretense of any fair lending or housing laws, the new developments were bound to be overly white. The question is, why did things explode as they did in the seventies and early eighties. I think racial animus was part of it, at least in the early stages, but a lot of it was the reality of rapidly declining conditions, a state of affairs that I would contend was aggravated by the left's tendency to excuse antisocial behaviour. I can't speak for Pittsburgh, but I can say that Detroit was governed almost exclusively by progressive types (The unions made sure of that) of one race or another from at least 1950 on, and not one of them was able to slow the downward spiral until, maybe, just now. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | June 7, 2007 3:45 PM

Kevin: Actually, it's 26-37k, and the lowest pay is in Maine. Me: Not for many beginning teachers in southern CA. Most start out at 28.
But either way please show where you got your numbers. p

Posted by: Payshun | June 7, 2007 4:25 PM

Wolvie: As to white flight, I'm not sure I follow where you're going with this, but I take it that what you're saying is that the roots lie in the decision to subsidize construction of new homes, combined with racial discrimination in the granting of loans ... but I hope you realize that you've conceded that a government program contributed to white flight. Me: You don't get a pass on this. What contributed and created white flight was a fear of black people and a desire to preserve all white neighborhoods. It was whites being called on the carpet for their irrational fear of black people. There was this thing called restrictive covenants that were all the rage lasting all the way to the late 70's and 80's that created contracts so that white only neighborhoods could only sell to other whites.
p

Posted by: Payshun | June 7, 2007 4:31 PM

W:
The question is, why did things explode as they did in the seventies and early eighties. I think racial animus was part of it, at least in the early stages, but a lot of it was the reality of rapidly declining conditions, a state of affairs that I would contend was aggravated by the left's tendency to excuse antisocial behaviour.

Me:
Stereotype, the left doesn't tend to excuse antisocial behavoior, if we do how do we do that? Rapidly declining conditions you speak of were the result of racist and angry white backlack w/n the government to force some people to move other places and lock them into ghettoes, and other low income housing so that they could be kept there. Instead of fixing the problems created by federal housing and making sure everything was fair and equal (like they promised) they left the poor out to lunch. Instead of providing security and further assistance (like new smaller housing) and the funds they promised they (beuracrats, state and local legislators, and the feds) all had a vested interest in keeping the poor where they were. Much was from racism and classism (think the early Jewish ghettoes at the turn of last century and the poor black migration into those same ghettoes a 60-70 years later.)

p>

Posted by: Payshun | June 7, 2007 4:40 PM

Oh and the suburbs were created by white racism as a refuge for whites to flee to. So let's keep the history straight.

p>

Posted by: Payshun | June 7, 2007 4:56 PM

Payshun,

You don't get: all of this was happening in spite of -- and sometimes because of -- government programs. Beautiful government-backed loans! Glorious government-run housing projects! Wondrous court-ordered school busing! All of it with wonderful intentions! And so much of it blew up in your collectivized faces!

I'm not asking for a pass here, I know a lot of this was sabotaged, wittingly or unwittingly by Republicans and others with ideologies similar to mine. (I don't pretend to have "no enemies on the right.")

But isn't that also a reality you need to account for in your own grand designs as well? I mean for better or worse, Republicans exist, and sometimes we even manage to win elections. If the success of your entire program depends on keeping us away from power, you should probably go back to the drawing board.

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | June 7, 2007 5:32 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote:

Once again, you ignore part of the story. Roosevelt did not dismantle Jim Crow laws in the South because he needed those "Dixiecrats" down there to push his program through, but as a result Southern blacks generally didn't benefit from "big government" programs in those days.

What? There was racism in the South? Wow, I was not aware of that! All this time I thought the Civil War was about state's rights! Next you'll be telling me that they held slaves down there back in the day!

No, seriously Rick, that's exactly my point -- politics and racism corrupted activist government. And you have yet to tell me why those same human failures couldn't screw up government programs now.

In fact, you keep repeating examples of government-led screwups but you have this touching, child-like faith that someday You'll get it right, You'll purge the bigots and other conservatives, and it will all work like a watch.

All these failures point to one conclusion Rick, and that is that government power needs to be used very carefully. Once again, I invite you to deal with that fact.

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | June 7, 2007 5:48 PM

In fact, you keep repeating examples of government-led screwups but you have this touching, child-like faith that someday You'll get it right, You'll purge the bigots and other conservatives, and it will all work like a watch.

You know full well that's not what I'm getting at. The problem is and never was "government" per se but hypocritical conservatives using it for their own self-serving ends and then complaining about it because they want to establish a de facto aristocracy -- that's exactly what the current occupant of the White House has tried to do for six years. They wanted to sabotage government programs precisely because they didn't want anyone else to benefit from them, but now that such a mentality is being exposed for what it always was the political right has lost its moxie. "Conservative" policies, including refusing to deal with ridiculous health-care and drug costs (driven by Wall Street more than anything else), are now causing even wealthier, more "middle-class" people to vote Democratic, which partially explains why the Republicans got beat in Novemeber.

This is part of what I mean about "justice, not charity" -- there are Scripture chapters about ripping people off to amass a fortune for yourself. You can complain all you want about the "progressives," but we're always been way ahead of the curve on this. And that's part of the reason this blog exists.>

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 7, 2007 6:20 PM

Wolvie said:
I am quite aware that there is class and racial conflict. I've seen stark bigotry (I don't just mean voting for Reagan, I mean honest-to-God hate) in the church and still feel shame over it. I've had to break through some class barriers of my own.

Me:
May God lift all shame from you. May you be the living hope you wish to see in the world and I pray that you would become an agent reconciliation.

p>

Posted by: Payshun | June 7, 2007 7:42 PM

Wolverine and Rick-
Well obviously, to some extent you are both correct. Government has so far sucked at helping the poor gain access to the resources necessary to sustain a adequate quality of life.
However, that doesn't mean that we should just stand by and continue to let this be the case.
Here's a crazy idea---Maybe, just maybe, if enough decent, thoughtful, and intelligent people get together and come up with a viable plan, then vote for people who don't only listen to their own voices, and then bring our plan to the table, maybe, just maybe Jesus' mandate to take care of the least of these can become a reality.
Or do you guys want to continue the peeing contest? ;)

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2007 9:32 PM

Payshun,

Thanks for the kind words. May God bless and keep you too.

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | June 8, 2007 12:16 AM

There is a definite limit to the "liberal bias" of the media. We never see or hear any liberal opinion to the left of the Democratic Party. We do get frequent doses of conservative opinion to the right of the GOP (especially these days), but the Democratic Party is treated as if it had no lunatic fringe, indeed as if it WERE the lunatic fringe.

Posted by: Marian Neudel | June 8, 2007 11:26 AM