MLK and LBJ: Movements and Politicians (by Jim Wallis)
An unfortunate exchange of words between the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama this week threatened to explode into real conflict, involving the always volatile U.S. issue of race. The dust-up was as unexpected as it was unfortunate, and was sparked in part by comments made about the respective roles of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson in achieving the historic goals of the civil rights movement. But race is the wrong way to view this escalating war of words (with operatives on both sides doing their political jobs of trying to gain from the controversy). Both of these candidates have records on civil rights and racial justice that deserve to be trusted. The truly historic significance of an African American and a woman emerging as leading candidates for president should not be diminished by bad campaign exchanges over race and gender. In last night's debate, they returned to higher ground.
The real issue here is the more complicated relationship between social movements and national politics; between moral leaders and elected officials in bringing about social and political change.
The great practitioners of social change - like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi - understood something very important. They knew that you don't change a society by merely replacing one politician with another. You change a society by changing the political wind. Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are being made, and you will change the outcomes. Move the conversation around a crucial issue to a whole new place, and you will open up possibilities for change never dreamed of before. And you will be surprised at how fast the politicians adjust to the change in the wind.
The story of the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 is a good historical example.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had just won the Nobel Peace Prize and was ready to come home from Norway. The freedom movement had achieved a great victory in securing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and King was honored as the newest Nobel laureate. But the civil rights leader decided to stop by Washington, D.C., before heading back home to Atlanta—because he needed to meet with the president of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
King told Johnson that the next step on the road to freedom was a voting rights act, without which black Americans in the South would never be able to really change their communities. But the nation's master of realpolitik told the U.S.'s moral leader that he couldn't deliver a voting rights act. Johnson said he had cashed in all his "chits" with the southern senators to get the civil rights law passed and that he had no political capital left. It would be five or 10 years, the president told King, before a voting rights act would be politically possible. But we can't wait that long, said King. Without voting rights, civil rights couldn't be fully realized. I'm sorry, Johnson reportedly told King, but a voting rights law just wasn't politically realistic. They would have to wait.
But Martin Luther King Jr. was not one to simply complain, withdraw, or give up. Instead, King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) began organizing—in a little town nobody had ever heard of called Selma, Alabama.
On one fateful day, SCLC leaders marched right across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, alongside the people of Selma, to face the notorious Sheriff Jim Clark and his virtual army of angry white police. On what would be called Bloody Sunday, a young man (and now congressman from Atlanta) named John Lewis was beaten almost to death, and many others were injured or jailed.
Two weeks later, in response to that brutal event, hundreds of clergy from all across the nation and from every denomination came to Selma and joined in the Selma to Montgomery march. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel came down from New York to march beside the black Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr.
The whole nation was watching. The eyes of the U.S. were focused on Selma, as they had been on Birmingham before the civil rights law was passed. And after the historic Selma to Montgomery march for freedom, it took only five months, not five years or 10, to pass a new voting rights act: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. King had changed the wind.
It was a great thing that Johnson responded to the challenge as he did (other presidents might not have), but it was King, not Johnson, who had painted a vivid picture for the world to see that changed the winds of public opinion and made a voting rights act now possible. The Selma campaign had transfixed the nation, dramatically shifted the public debate, and fundamentally altered the political context to make a new voting rights law politically realistic.
It is a good lesson for this year's presidential race. Change must go deeper than politics. In fact, unless change goes deeper, politics won't really change. No matter which candidate finally wins this presidential election, he or she will not be able to really change the big things in the U.S. and the world that must be changed, unless and until there are social movements pushing for those changes from outside of politics. Because when politics fails to resolve or even address the most significant moral issues, what often occurs is that social movements rise up to change politics; and the best social movements always have spiritual foundations.
Even a candidate who runs on change, really wants it, and goes to Washington to make it, will confront a vast array of powerful forces which will do everything possible to prevent real change. Politics is unlikely to be changed merely from within - no matter who wins, and no matter how sincere they are, we will not see significant change unless, and until, the pressure increases from the outside. Remember, President Lyndon Johnson didn't become a civil rights leader until Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks made him one.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Great use of history. The American system CAN work, and in ways that I believe God approves.
Posted by: carl copas | January 16, 2008 5:44 PM
Glad you covered this politcal cat fight , and you were able to a positive spin to it .
Good for you .
Posted by: Mick | January 16, 2008 5:55 PM
I would say more importantly than changing "political wind" is changing the social-cultural wind. If progressive Christians propose this as a solution for the abortion problem, we must also consider this the necessary solution for racial, economic, and other justice issues.
The age of government solutions to socio-cultural problems needs to pass...
Posted by: Matt K | January 16, 2008 7:52 PM
Thing is, Johnson was ultimately proven correct -- some Southern Democratic politicians had already begun moving to the Republican Party, with the transformation completed during the Reagan years. Not for nothing did he supposedly say after signing the Voting Rights Act, "I have just lost the South for a generation."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 16, 2008 7:59 PM
And yet social movements too will fail in the end, because of who man is.
Rick: Politically Johnson was proven correct, but the Voting Rights Act still stands, does it not? His achievement is not that he strengthened his party but that he strengthened the nation as a whole.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | January 16, 2008 8:20 PM
I think this shows the differences between the two leading Democratic candidates. One believes that a government ruler is the most important thing, while the other believes that a movement of, and the actions of the American people are just as if not more important. Another major difference is that one has character, while the other shows a decided lack of character with a win-at-all-costs campaign style.
Posted by: Dan | January 16, 2008 8:57 PM
Politically Johnson was proven correct, but the Voting Rights Act still stands, does it not? His achievement is not that he strengthened his party but that he strengthened the nation as a whole.
Reagan, through AG Ed Meese, tried to weaken it, complaining that it "discriminated against the South." And he also hated King with a passion, something that most people other than African-Americans don't get (especially since he signed the proclamation making his birthday a national holiday).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 16, 2008 9:11 PM
Me-thinks candidates running for president get tired - very tired. Too little sleep, too hectic of a schedule for too many days on end - and that often causes them to say things they would never say if they were well-rested. And make big issues of things they would never make - if only they were a little better rested.
This past week's arguing between Obama and Clinton about the relative importance of Lyndon Johnson vs Dr Martin Luther King was a perfect example of all that.
I make nothing more of it. I just think both the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign showed the wear and tear these kinds of campaigns have on people.
Both King and Johnson had important parts to play. And I think all realize that. They were just all tired.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | January 17, 2008 1:08 AM
Sorry, Jim, I wouldn’t just assume either of them have good records on helping minorities. Both seem to have the attitude that the War on Poverty is winnable if we just spend another trillion or two. Frankly, it sounds a lot like Bush on Iraq. Some people in Iraq are better off, just as WOP has helped some people. But are the inner cities any better than before? Mrs. Clinton, as a wise mother, wouldn’t send her daughter to school in Washington, DC. Most other public schools, especially in the inner cities, are poor places to get a well rounded education. Why aren’t parents in control of "public" schools?
Thanks to a perfect storm of perhaps well meaning Republican and Democratic spending, huge numbers of genuinely good people have exercised their right to move out of our cities. Why does it seem that only rappers are being enabled by Mrs. Clinton’s do-gooders? Even Christopher Lasch—not exactly a right-winger—criticized her top-down approach to good works.
"Hillary Clinton, child saver:
What she values will not help the family"
http://www.harpers.org/archive/1992/10/0001041
And what about religious freedom? Our "established" religion seems to be violence and a looming secularism, abetted by Sen. Clinton's three favorite justices, Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg. Two more like them, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed by her husband, would be rendered irrelevant and Bible clubs thrown from schools into the streets. Or forbidden to utter what the STATE defines as "proselytizing." (aka telling people about Jesus). There are no easy solutions to the War on Poverty, or the War in Iraq. Withdrawing the troops in the Middle East as fast as they can run is probably a bad idea, and so is immediately ending welfare(especially since Sen. Clinton’s husband has successfully reformed it, over the vehement objections of the Sojourners crowd, back when I was a subscriber). But we must rethink everything if there is to be REAL change, starting with returning control of public schools to parents. Failing that, school vouchers: minorities support them as strongly as Evangelical Christians, if not more so—they have more at stake!
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 17, 2008 8:22 AM
Agree 100% w/ Amazon. I appreciate Jim's point regarding different perspectives on the mechanisms of change (likely coinciding with the point of his new book).
I have not followed the varied remarks closely. Was the general public either interested or concerned over the substance of any of the remarks? Or was this just a politician/media staged "mini-brawl" unrelated to the well-being of anybody?
I too find our campaign system to be ridiculous. To some degree there is merit to the argument that if a candidate can organize, strategize, persuade, speak non-stop, fundraise, propogandize, eat badly, trash family life, miss church, shift gears, travel the country, say the same thing 24,567 times, and tell half-truths for two years straight--they will have shown something about their capacity to serve as President.
I imagine winning the Miss America pageant would do about the same.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 17, 2008 8:54 AM
Oh, and thank-you Amazon Creek for your comment.
I think living in a media/information saturated culture raises a real stewardship issue for each of us. Particularly those of us who consume a great deal of news/information and expend energy conversing about it.
To what end does the Lord wish us to steward our capacity to gather/disseminate and converse about public life. I think it very important but can also be profoundly wasteful.
Amazon Creek's comment models a discipline of hearing an exchange and saying--"Sorry, engaging in this argument is not stewarding my time towards a worthy end."
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 17, 2008 9:04 AM
As posted--- Sorry, Jim, I wouldn’t just assume either of them have good records on helping minorities. Both seem to have the attitude that the War on Poverty is winnable if we just spend another trillion or two. Frankly, it sounds a lot like Bush on Iraq. Some people in Iraq are better off, just as WOP has helped some people. But are the inner cities any better than before? Mrs. Clinton, as a wise mother, wouldn’t send her daughter to school in Washington, DC. Most other public schools, especially in the inner cities, are poor places to get a well rounded education. Why aren’t parents in control of "public" schools?
Thanks to a perfect storm of perhaps well meaning Republican and Democratic spending, huge numbers of genuinely good people have exercised their right to move out of our cities. Why does it seem that only rappers are being enabled by Mrs. Clinton’s do-gooders? Even Christopher Lasch—not exactly a right-winger—criticized her top-down approach to good works.
"Hillary Clinton, child saver:
What she values will not help the family"
And what about religious freedom? Our "established" religion seems to be violence and a looming secularism, abetted by Sen. Clinton's three favorite justices, Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg. Two more like them, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed by her husband, would be rendered irrelevant and Bible clubs thrown from schools into the streets. Or forbidden to utter what the STATE defines as "proselytizing." (aka telling people about Jesus). There are no easy solutions to the War on Poverty, or the War in Iraq. Withdrawing the troops in the Middle East as fast as they can run is probably a bad idea, and so is immediately ending welfare(especially since Sen. Clinton’s husband has successfully reformed it, over the vehement objections of the Sojourners crowd, back when I was a subscriber). But we must rethink everything if there is to be REAL change, starting with returning control of public schools to parents. Failing that, school vouchers: minorities support them as strongly as Evangelical Christians, if not more so—they have more at stake!
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 17, 2008 9:53 AM
The unfortunate exchange of words between Obama and Clinton have nothing to do with politics. It has to do with a pair of individuals that claim to be Christians and encourage, support and condone, what the Apostles would not. When you look into the actions and true beliefs of these two people and comparing them to the teachings of Christ Jesus and the writings of the Apostles, no Christian should help them or their political party in their promotion of immorality.
Posted by: Donny | January 17, 2008 10:06 AM
But are the inner cities any better than before? Mrs. Clinton, as a wise mother, wouldn’t send her daughter to school in Washington, DC. Most other public schools, especially in the inner cities, are poor places to get a well rounded education. Why aren’t parents in control of "public" schools?
As someone who is a "minority" and whose church ministers extensively in the "inner city," your remarks are somewhat ignorant, bordering on offensive. FYI, the real problems facing most urban areas have always been the systematic removal of resources, both social and economic, from them beginning in the 1950s due largely to "white flight" and which compromise the stability of the neighborhood, the most important issue. That's what the "War on Poverty" was designed to combat, and it actually largely worked. But the right wing wanted to put an end to it because they really wanted to keep people down.
...the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed by her husband, would be rendered irrelevant and Bible clubs thrown from schools into the streets.
Not likely, considering that the legislation was crafted with the help of -- gasp! -- the ACLU.
Failing that, school vouchers: minorities support them as strongly as Evangelical Christians, if not more so—they have more at stake!
You wish -- in fact, studies, one published in 1993, have shown that a change in school actually has virtually no effect on well children do in school. And in fact, contrary to what you just said, blacks do not support vouchers, primarily because they're afraid of the abuse their children might receive from "higher-class" kids in another neighborhood. (And those parents don't want them anyway.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 10:09 AM
Donny -- You have no clue as to what the Apostles would condone, as they were above politics.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 10:12 AM
'...of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama this week threatened to explode into real conflict...'
We are suprized - please...
'In last night's debate, they returned to higher ground.'
Well - after stooping so low as they did - the only way they had available to go was up. But they won't stay there long.
'...moral leaders...'
Not sure that the word moral and one of the canidates should be used in the same sentence. But then again - what IS your definition of 'IS'.
'Change the wind,...'
You can't change the wind. But you can adjust your sails. Look at the moral cumpas and adjust your sails to correct your course and then you will make a change.
'Johnson said he had cashed in all...'
This is a good argument for term limits on all elected officials so that you don't have this 'partering system' to get the job done.
Doing the right thing should not have to be tied to political chips to be cashed.
Change must go deeper than politics.'
But change in DC through the political system has proven to be impossible for the most part. As long as congress has to be more focused on getting re-elected - change will be slow at best. (some might say that is a good thing - who knows) If an elected official only needed to be concerned about getting re-elected once. They might be able to make a change based on what is moral and correct rather than what needs to be done to stay in power.
Remember, President Lyndon Johnson didn't become a civil rights leader until Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks made him one.
I believe that he never was one and only did what needed to be done to assure that he and his party remained in power. If King and never received the Nobel he would not have had the clout to confront Johnson. If he had not challenged Johnson, who would not step up to the plate. King would have had a more difficult time bringing the Voter Rights Act to the public. Had he not be able to bring it to the people - it would have taken a long time for it to happen. So - many the people that made this happen were the Nobel committee and the world community at large.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 17, 2008 10:16 AM
Moderatelad -- Hell just froze over; I agree with you completely about King and LBJ.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 10:49 AM
Bless you, Rick, and what your church is doing in Jesus’ name in the city. It sounds like the sort of thing John Perkins called for in his 1993 article in Prism. He said "The social programs we offer should not be separated from the body of evangelizing believers who live and work in the inner city." Sadly, Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg are still chipping away at RFRA of 1993. Why should we assume that ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have suddenly begun acting from good will and generosity towards those who differ from them? Decades ago, the ACLU treated the Nazi marchers in Skokie better than they treat Christians today.
We can argue "statistics" and vouchers all day, but the big picture is that the schools need to be fixed before Hillary throws more of other people’s money at them. "You wish" I have no will towards single parents in the inner city. I wish they all were healthy enough to be involved in their kids’ lives; many of them are. But we have massively enabled the millions who aren’t. Ask Beth Kidd, whom my church supports in the inner cities near here. So, I ask you, please use the word "ignorant" carefully or not at all: Who said vouchers would send poor blacks to white suburban schools? Who says those schools are any good anyway? Vouchers could support parent controlled schools right in the inner city. Also, in your anger, you seem to have skipped my reference to what Republicans and Democrats have both done to contribute to white flight: Squander huge amounts on commuter highways (never the intent of the Interstate Highway System), in competition with private passenger railroads. Huge mandatory sentences for drug crimes, as well as laws making it hard for police to do their jobs haven’t helped either. Yes, those were crafted to address ugly abuse by police during "profiling" but the law of unintended consequences suggests that we remove our ideological blinders and see what can be done to really support those who serve in uniform.
Are your aware that there are those of ill will on both sides? Believe me, my rich, liberal neighbors don’t seem to care about the poor any more than those wicked Republicans you tar with your broad brush. Maybe I missed something, but are you sure the right wing is as perfectly evil as you said: "But the right wing wanted to put an end to it because they really wanted to keep people down." How do you know this? Have you prayed next to hundreds of right wingers and are certain they are all hypocrites? Kayne West, 50 Cent, Oprah: are they preaching anything better than victimization, and blaming everyone but ourselves?
Please, keep up your deeds of mercy in Jesus name, but don’t assume Hillary and Obama will fix anything, when "change" is the last thing on their minds.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 17, 2008 11:06 AM
Why should we assume that ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have suddenly begun acting from good will and generosity towards those who differ from them? Decades ago, the ACLU treated the Nazi marchers in Skokie better than they treat Christians today.
Truth be told, they don't treat Christians any better or worse than they do anyone else. The problem is that some insecure conservative Christians feel they have the inherent right basically to shove their cultural values down everyone's throats, which is what the ACLU is rightly resisting. (As such, bashing the ACLU is always good for raising funds, BTW.)
We can argue "statistics" and vouchers all day, but the big picture is that the schools need to be fixed before Hillary throws more of other people’s money at them.
No, that isn't the big picture. Any teacher will tell you (and both my parents were such) that it's not the schools that need to be fixed; it's the families whose children populate them that do and no one is talking about helping them.
So, I ask you, please use the word "ignorant" carefully or not at all: Who said vouchers would send poor blacks to white suburban schools? Who says those schools are any good anyway? Vouchers could support parent controlled schools right in the inner city.
As for vouchers in white suburban schools, that's the real reason they keep getting voted down across the country -- they have a good thing going and don't want to upset the apple cart. Cleveland's voucher program, which was declared illegal some years ago, would not have been approved without a provision exempting suburban schools. And as far as "charter schools," in my city they have generally been a disaster, doing worse than even the public schools. Read: The school system isn't the heart of the problem.
"But the right wing wanted to put an end to it because they really wanted to keep people down."
How do you know this? Have you prayed next to hundreds of right wingers and are certain they are all hypocrites?
In fact, I have. Their only concern was their own comfort and authority, especially in the 1980s; I saw them as victims of misleading secular propaganda that infiltrated the church. Thank God that's changing today, especially with former pastor Mike Huckabee changing the Christian calculus on poverty.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 11:48 AM
Rick, I'm very disappointed that you have judged huge numbers of your brothers and sisters as hypocrites. A thoughtful, moderate sermon on this is by Helmut Thielicke on the wheat and the tares in "The Father's Heart"
I promised myself "no more posts today" so I'll sign off with this from above:Amazon Creek's comment models a discipline of hearing an exchange and saying--"Sorry, engaging in this argument is not stewarding my time towards a worthy end."
Blessings,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 17, 2008 12:21 PM
Rick, I'm very disappointed that you have judged huge numbers of your brothers and sisters as hypocrites.
Their actions and attitudes forced me to come to those conclusions, and I'm far from the only one who felt that way.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 12:43 PM
"Mrs. Clinton, as a wise mother, wouldn’t send her daughter to school in Washington, DC. Most other public schools, especially in the inner cities, are poor places to get a well rounded education"
Posted by: Witness for Peace
Hillary and Bill sent her child to a private school when they lived in DC . A conservative private school You can hardly use the excuse of money spent per pupil when talking of DC public schools . However how the money is spent is something that should be talked about but seldom is .
The problem is that some insecure conservative Christians feel they have the inherent right basically to shove their cultural values down everyone's throats,
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
I just got a political advocacy e mail from the Washington State ACLU for their political advocacy in 2008 . Abortion rights , Domestic Partnership Rights , and Assisted Suuicide and just a few left winged issues they are promoting .
They are promoting , not defending . Seems to me the left does more then enough shoving of their own . Your opinion is yours , especially if you do not share the values of many of the hypocrits on the right , but it appears to many hypocrits it is they who are shoving back .
Posted by: Mick | January 17, 2008 1:34 PM
OK, I admit it, I'm addicted. Two corrections: It just occurred to me that I seemed to be defending white flight with my original "many good people" posting. Please forgive me--although I didn't say so, I was actually thinking of people of color who were giving up on drug infested, value-free neighborhoods. My blessings to all those who didn't!
Second, Thielicke's book is entitled "The Waiting Father" and it has really helped me with anger towards Christians who refuse to behave as such. I wasted most of the 1980's angry at the same people Rick is condemning. It didn't do me or anyone else any good. Except perhaps Jesse Jackson, who got some primary votes, every time I saw him on the ballot! Back when Sojourners dared to address the issue, Jackson contributed a brief, pro-life piece to a cover story entitled "What Does it Mean to be Pro-life"
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 17, 2008 1:52 PM
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 17, 2008 1:52 PM
I understood more or less what you said. I for the most part do not get mad as it does no good in the long run. I enjoy (for the most part) engaging people that disagree with me and show them the love of God by respecting their opinion even when I believe that they are %^&%$ idots. More often than not we end up talking about the 'issue' at a later time and they make a small correction in their thinking and come to a greater / better understanding.
Express your self with all the conviction you have and don't back off from what you believe. But be willing to listen (even if it is dribble) and offer another view of the issue.
Help us make the world a better place because we were here and loved mankind. (all enclusive)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 17, 2008 2:26 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 10:49 AM
Moderatelad -- Hell just froze over; I agree with you completely about King and LBJ.
Thank goodness for devibulators - I hit the floor and they had to revive me. I am going to remember this day.
There are moments you remember all you lives...
Pappa can you hear me...
Sorry - went a little Yentle there.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 17, 2008 2:48 PM
I just got a political advocacy e mail from the Washington State ACLU for their political advocacy in 2008. Abortion rights, Domestic Partnership Rights, and Assisted Suuicide and just a few left winged issues they are promoting.
The ACLU doesn't see it as a "left-wing" issue, trust me. Truth be told, a lot of conservatives, primarily secular (which comprise the majority of the political right), believe the same things; one of Bill Clinton's tormentors recently was interviewed in a magazine and confessed that he believed in "open marriage."
But, pray tell, what in the world does this have to do with Martin Luther King Jr.? I mean, that was the topic of this thread.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 2:55 PM
"That government is best which governs least."
Henry David Thoreau
Wallis didn't address how Clinton's assertion that "It took a presidnet" is in direct contrast with his own take of those events.
Sadly I expected as much.
Posted by: Steve | January 17, 2008 3:29 PM
A couple of commenters have reflected on this statement (above):
Mrs. Clinton, as a wise mother, wouldn’t send her daughter to school in Washington, DC. Most other public schools, especially in the inner cities, are poor places to get a well rounded education. Why aren’t parents in control of "public" schools?
The Clintons sent Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends School, a Quaker school in northwest DC. In the coming school year, tuition will be approximately $30,000. Even at that price, Sidwell will have many applicants for every available slot next year. So without commenting on Sen. Clinton's wisdom, she is clearly a privileged mother, as she can (a) arrange to get her child into this school, and (b) afford it.
Another commenter pointed out that this is a "very conservative school." Not so: the school very much attempts to live into the Quaker ideals of human value, the presence of the divine in every human being, and value of testimony to our lives together. The new middle school building is a testament to the intersection of creative environmental engineering with engaging students in stewardship through learning, and has won numerous awards.
Yet we are one of the many families living in northwest DC whose children attend the DC public schools. We've working hard, sometimes against and sometimes with the system, to build a community of learning in a safe and facilitating environment. In my case, we've had children in DC public schools for the past seven years.
Posted by: Rick Dulaney | January 17, 2008 4:02 PM
Woman gingerly testing the waters...
Donny,
I dare say (according to your argument) that no one (Left or Right) is worthy of Christians supporting in politics. We are all frail, sinful people (as were the Apostles) who miss the mark. Why do you just make this argument about the Democratic candidates and not the Republicans?
Posted by: Nuttshell | January 17, 2008 4:06 PM
Rick asked a good question: MLK and LBJ and relevance to the above? My thoughts: most of these SoJo columns make some interesting points, many of which are close to my own views. Then, each column hints at (and the discussion shouts out) that the solution is "Vote Democratic". This isn't why I was a Sojounrners subscriber for many years. If I heard an occasional bipartisan suggestion, I wouldn't spend so much time making poor Rick think I got my education reading Right Wing Junk mail. (And I wouldn't have to reply that he seems to believe ACLU junkmail himself.) Where are bipartisan, out of the box ideas like Clinton reforming welfare and balancing the budget, Nixon visiting China, and so forth? All I hear recently is endless repetitions of "The monologue of the R. Right is over" Therefore, vote a straight Democratic ticket. Jim Wallis is boring us with his new monologue, and a timid one at that.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 17, 2008 4:16 PM
Thank you, Nutshell. You hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: Paul Kadrmas | January 17, 2008 4:28 PM
Very thoughtful piece of writing. This goes way beyond the dispute you outline. It is the interplay between spiritual moral vision. and the pragmatic difficulties of how to lead toward a more just society.
It touches on the long history of tension between church and spirit, the ideals of a just society and the imperfections of people.
Posted by: jonabark | January 17, 2008 4:31 PM
We can argue "statistics" and vouchers all day, but the big picture is that the schools need to be fixed before Hillary throws more of other people’s money at them. ( moderatelad)
Why is it OK to throw the peoples money at deadbeat billionaire contractors like Bechtel who according to the GAO built an office where the light fixtures fill with urine and feces, why Ok to spend a thousand a day per mercenary on killers who gun down civilians in the street; why Ok to throw billions into war crimes and torture camps but we can't provide the best possible education to all our children?
Posted by: jonabark | January 17, 2008 4:43 PM
Where are bipartisan, out of the box ideas like Clinton reforming welfare and balancing the budget, Nixon visiting China, and so forth?
Non-existent, thanks to the right-wing in this country trying to run everything and push everyone else out beginning in 1981. You resent Wallis' saying that "the monologue of the Religious Right is over"? Well, it was a virtual monologue, and this evangelical Christian was tired of that. Conservatives actually have tried to sanitize King's message to make him sound like one of them when in fact he was extremely critical of right-wing politics and even called Barry Goldwater "the most dangerous man in the country."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 4:46 PM
We can argue "statistics" and vouchers all day, but the big picture is that the schools need to be fixed before Hillary throws more of other people’s money at them. ( moderatelad)
Why is it OK to throw the peoples money at deadbeat billionaire contractors like Bechtel who according to the GAO built an office where the light fixtures fill with urine and feces, why Ok to spend a thousand a day per mercenary on killers who gun down civilians in the street; why Ok to throw billions into war crimes and torture camps but we can't provide the best possible education to all our children?
Posted by: jonabark | January 17, 2008 4:52 PM
"Politically Johnson was proven correct, but the Voting Rights Act still stands, does it not?"
Actually, lots of Southern Congressfolk and Senators tried to prevent the Act from being renewed a couple years ago. So it stands IN SPITE of Southern conservatives, who appear to have been pandering to the racists in their districts just as they did when they opposed the MLK holiday.
Posted by: I and I | January 17, 2008 4:53 PM
"The inner city is the darkest place in our nation….
The church needs to become intentional in its commitment to the inner city. There are no easy solutions or simple programs that will reach deep into this culture of despair. The church needs to confront the pattern of this world, which is to offer short term answers while avoiding the pain."
John Perkins
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 17, 2008 5:28 PM
Posted by: jonabark | January 17, 2008 4:52 PM
We can argue "statistics" and vouchers all day, but the big picture is that the schools need to be fixed before Hillary throws more of other people’s money at them. ( moderatelad)
This is not my quote - sorry
Rob
Posted by: moderatelad | January 17, 2008 6:56 PM
"Why is it OK to throw the peoples money at deadbeat billionaire contractors like Bechtel who according to the GAO built an office where the light fixtures fill with urine and feces, why Ok to spend a thousand a day per mercenary on killers who gun down civilians in the street; why Ok to throw billions into war crimes and torture camps but we can't provide the best possible education to all our children?"
Exactly. This is why I don't take seriously the constant refrain by some conservatives about wasteful spending on social policy. When they start to address corporate welfare as well, then they will get my attention and respect. Until then, it's just a debate about which interest group ("faction" James Madison called it in the Federalist Papers) gets the fed's largesse.
Posted by: carl copas | January 17, 2008 7:27 PM
Thanks to Jim for a fuller version of a story that I've only heard in pieces before. As for the rest... this is a tough campaign. I've been recalling Bill Clinton's first campaign. He changed the country, and those who did not like the change fought back. They won and their fear of what Bill and Hillary (and Al Gore) stand for can be seen as the driving force behind much that has happened over the last 14 years (since New Gingrich became Speaker of the House). That fear is still out there, and my deep concern is that electing Hillary will not change that, but only make it worse.
It's not easy being 60, feeling that you're finally a grown up with a level head and your feet on the ground, and there is a Much Younger Person claiming that it's his time to lead. But in Obama I see the lessons I tried to teach my children when they were small. I put my soul into those lessons, and now, I feel, that it's time to let someone from this generation take over. It's time to move on, to The Pulse of [a new] Morning.
Posted by: Roger127 | January 17, 2008 8:43 PM
That fear is still out there, and my deep concern is that electing Hillary will not change that, but only make it worse.
Not likely -- the problem for the conservatives today is that their media were eventually exposed as fraudulent. With Clinton they floated unsubstantiated rumors about his "moral corruption" and had the mainstream media trying to chase them down without any success (because there was, really, nothing to find). Hillary eventually learned this, which is why she came up with her "vast right-wing conspiracy" complaint, and upon investigating the MSM realized that she was right and stopped taking tips from the conservatives. That's also why the "madrassa" story in the Washington Times has largely failed to stick to Barack Obama when it would have before.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 17, 2008 9:01 PM
'The truly historic significance of an African American and a woman emerging as leading candidates for president' may be that in an Augustan Republic, or soft fascism, such as we have had at least since the theft of the previous two presidential elections, it really doesn't matter who occupies the office of president, as long as that person is biddable to his coporate donors– 'owners'.
Oh, yeah; Mussolini defined fascism as 'a corporate state', and he ought to 've known.
We actually saw that foreshadowed in the presidency of Ron, the Gipper, and we actually see it fully realized in the faux presidency of George W Bush.
Have you noticed how dull and orderly and nonviolent royal successions become as nations develop toward Democracy? Why bother to fight and die for a fgure-head office?
Why not let a woman or black man be president when no power lies in the office?
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | January 17, 2008 11:12 PM
Oh, yeah; Mussolini defined fascism as 'a corporate state', and he ought to 've known.
We actually saw that foreshadowed in the presidency of Ron, the Gipper, and we actually see it fully realized in the faux presidency of George W Bush.
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr
Not likely -- the problem for the conservatives today is that their media were eventually exposed as fraudulent
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
You change a society by changing the political wind. Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are being made, and you will change the outcomes. Move the conversation around a crucial issue to a whole new place, and you will open up possibilities for change never dreamed of before
Jim Wallis
why Ok to throw billions into war crimes and torture camps
Posted by: carl copas
So it stands IN SPITE of Southern conservatives, who appear to have been pandering to the racists in their districts just as they did when they opposed the MLK holiday.
Posted by: I and I
Posted by: Mick | January 18, 2008 2:02 AM
Dear Jim:
Thank you. I after listening to the news all week you were the only one who retold the story the way I remembered it as a child.
Knowing what Johnson's role was during the Civil Rights Era, I wondered why Hillary would want to even bring the man up and remind us who he really was. How could she forget his reluctance and cowardliness?
As a 6 year old, I still remember the look on my father's face as we sat down for dinner after the news that night, after seeing children in Selma being hosed, beaten and chewed on by police dogs. He looked me in the eye and asked me what I thought about what I had just seen. He was visibly moved and deeply concerned about the world I was going to grow up in.
He already knew what a dangerous world it was becoming for Rev. King.
I am praying that our nations candidates are surrounded by gardian angels and witnesses beyond reproach so that none of them can be blindsided in the last hour by slander.
What can we do to make sure this is going to be a fair argument when the last two candidates approach the finish line?
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | January 18, 2008 6:46 AM
I know this is going to rankle some people out there especially Rick but the Dems true colors are showing. The Dems are the ones who are racist and it is showing itself in the way the way the Clintons are treating Obama. If the Clintons were Republicans and doing what they are doing they would have been hung out to dry by the drive by media a long time ago But since the Clintons are Dems well it seems to be ok. Enough on that and on to my real reason for writing which will also rankle some people on this site.
Something has been bothering me for a while about so called liberal christians and I think God finally showed me the problem. It is simply that liberal Christians and here I am talking about men are simply sissys. You see liberlism is easy because when things get hard you can sit around and blame somebody else for all your problems. You never have to look deep inside yourself and think maybe just maybe I had something to do in getting here.
For example you are poor which in America is not really poor but you catch my drift. Instead of bucking up and trying to make a better life for yourself you sit and complain and hope that the govt. will come to your rescue and help you out. I have no problem helping others when it is actually heliping them but liberalism does not help things it only makes things worse. All you need to do is look at black inner cities to see it. Welfare and the handing out of other peoples money has done more to harm the black population then any other thing in America. No it is not the white mam who is holding down the black man but there own govt. What about the dad in the black family you ask does not he share any responsibilty to the shambles that the inner cities has become. Of course but why should he stick around and take responsibility for his actions when the state has basically said he does not have to. That is the legacy of welfare to the black communitee- The black man is not needed to raise a family because here is Govt. to replace him- we will do everything you can do except teach your kids how to be a man and a woman so therefore the cycle will keep repeating itself.
Imagine if Jesus were a liberal. First of all he would not have been born because he would have expected someone to take his place- Hey I did not cause them to sin so why should I bear the burdens of their sins for them. Have somebody else do it. Even if he was born at the first sign of trouble do you think he would have kept on going? Probally not. He would have stopped and sat there whining saying it is so hard, it is not fair and it is not my fault. Have somebody else take my place.
Conservatism on the other hand makes men. Where liberlism is easy conservatism is hard. It takes guts to stand and up and take responsibilties for your actions. It takes guts when the going gets hard to stay and not quit. It is also the truth which is why the world hates it and is trying so hard to bring it down. I am so glad Jesus was a man on a mission who knew what he was born to do. Even though it was hard and yeah it probally was not fair He finished. He did it without complaining and blaming anybody else. He did it without expecting handouts and entitlements. He finished what he came to do and for that I am eternally gratefull.
As far as the apostles come on man, after watching Jesus do you really think they were libs. Why do you think Ronald Reagan is still so popular today? He made men want to be men again. He gave people hope. It is what true conservatism does. Liberlaism is by nauture pessimistic and therfore can offer no hope. It is why you are hard pressed to find any liberal who is really popular today. It is also why the republican party is still searching. They are searching for that leader who will offer hope. People are tired of the pessimism of liberlism and right now out of both parties that is basically what they are getting.
Posted by: DH | January 18, 2008 8:46 AM
If the Clintons were Republicans and doing what they are doing they would have been hung out to dry by the drive by media a long time ago.
Utterly false -- the right-wing media would have protected them. If it weren't for them Reagan and Bush would have been impeached for Iran-Contra (and probably should have been).
You see liberlism is easy because when things get hard you can sit around and blame somebody else for all your problems.
Then, by your estimation, Rush Limbaugh is a flaming liberal because he's make a living for the last 20 years doing exactly that. And, truth be told, so are you because in fact that's just what you're doing, blaming "liberals" for everything.
Why do you think Ronald Reagan is still so popular today? He made men want to be men again. He gave people hope. It is what true conservatism does.
Ronald Reagan was nothing more than a salesman for an agenda that has actually hurt this country, and in fact Bill Clinton is more popular today than he was. And, as I mentioned earlier, Reagan was opposed to the civil-rights movement and deeply resented Martin Luther King Jr. It is no surprise that most African-Americans have always despised not only Reagan but the entire conservative enterprise.
Bottom line, for you the right-wing agenda has supplanted the Scriptures as holy writ, and thus your attempt to whitewash conservatism's flaws won't fly here. If conservatism realy were truth this blog wouldn't exist because everyone here would agree with it. Oh, and that book you talk about, "The Marketing of Evil"? Some of us consider conservatism itself evil.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 10:24 AM
I've just finished reading Jim's commentary and haven't read all the blog contributions. But I think it is easy to underestimate the place the politicians have as well, especially by those of us who by nature are the voices of (and sometimes IN) the political wind.
King went and challenged Johnson. Johnson in turn challenged King (altho' perhaps Johnson didn't know it, but was simply explaining political realities). And, as was noted by one blogger (I DID hit that one skimming over it all), it DID cost Johnson and the Democratic Party, and for longer than a generation. The old Dixiecrats became the basis upon which the neo-conservative movement and the evangelical right has grown, usually hand-in-hand, although at times in simply parallel directions.
I won't speculate upon what King might have done without Johnson's challenge. But what King DID do was to, as is well noted by Jim, change the political 'wind' which in turn enabled Johnson to do that which he could not himself do.
Johnson had his place; King had his. BOTH were part of the Voting Rights Act, and, I dare say, the VRA would not have been passed without EACH doing their part.
Give credit where credit is due, or, better, if one doesn't care who gets the credit, we ALL can achieve great things for God! (I would attribute the quotation, but I don't remember who said it... perhaps I will remember soon!)
Posted by: Paul Uzel | January 18, 2008 10:38 AM
The worst part about the whole enterprise -- and I weep for this even today -- is that it continued to split the church. I never truly understood why evangelism and social justice didn't go hand-in-hand for the simple reason that, at least in theory, that the church should be beyond race, class, ethnicity, culture etc. I'm an evangelical, but it was King who showed me that the civil-rights movement was compatible with the Gospel (and in fact demonstrated it).
But when you use religion primarily as a means to gain power, which the right has done over the past 30 years, some of that "justice" and "shalom" stuff gets tossed to the wind. You have people like DH who complain that people who want simple justice seek to blame someone for their problems, ignoring that the ability to make their lives better that he says he wants has been compromised or, in extreme cases, systematically removed. I remember the passage in the book "Soul on Ice" where Eldridge Cleaver mentioned people in authority who "calculate how to hide bread from the hungry" -- when I first read it I thought it was a ridiculous statement; now I recognize it as prophetic.
Thank God that things are changing. I mentioned that my church does a lot of diaconal work in the "inner-city" neighborhood where it's located. We preach the stereotypical "salvation message" and encourage folks to get off alcohol and drugs, among other things; but we also argue against unjust economic policies that keep the poor in that state. As a result, genuine revival has taken place in our church. It's only a matter of time before evangelicalism in general "gets it"; then we'll really see the Holy Spirit move.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 11:02 AM
"Something has been bothering me for a while about so called liberal christians and I think God finally showed me the problem. It is simply that liberal Christians...are simply sissys."
Yep, when you're about to say something really silly, give it credibility by saying "God told me this." But you're not exactly the first to do so.
Bless you, my brother. That old caricature of liberals should have died long ago. Rick responded quite effectively so there's no need to add to it, but I suggest you get beyond labels and sweeping generalizations. There's definitely room for opposing and conservative viewpoints on this blog, but let's try to put some thought into what we post.
Posted by: I and I | January 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Democrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power.
The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton's racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat.
When Democrats called Senator Obama a "Magic Negro," there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a "Simple Sambo" and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant "Mammy", reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of "Jim Crow."
If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton's remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it.
The democrats have a history of racism , even still today used to portray others of it by using it .
______
Posted by: DL | January 18, 2008 1:21 PM
To be fair Rick, black conservatives (chuckles at the idea) reap many rewards from sticking w/ the establishment. There are too many examples of that. So as long as they tow the party line and agree w/ everything then they get appointments, promotions and loyalty, (granted it's to show that the republican party is more diverse even though it's not) but it does reveal how conservatives understrand race and loyalty.
That's the crazy part about it.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 18, 2008 3:52 PM
payshun -- I note the hypocrisy. They oppose affirmative action "on principle" but use it shamlessly to show they're not really racist. But the real issue, of course, is how much blacks get to shape the agenda.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 18, 2008 4:11 PM
"The democrats have a history of racism"
Hey, DL (or DH or whatever your moniker is), do you have any interest in the topic of racism as a social evil, other than as a canard with which to bash liberals? I doubt it.
Posted by: I and I | January 18, 2008 5:09 PM
Cads: "Rick and Payshun, Your racism is showing. You're saying that unless a black person thinks a certain way, they have to be a pawn of conservatives. I give some African Americans much more credit than you for venturing outside the so-called "accepted" way of black thinking. You're saying that all blacks should think alike, and that's just pitiful."
Cads, are you saying that Rick and Payshun are self-hating black men? Fascinating.
Posted by: carl copas | January 18, 2008 7:07 PM
Just saying you shouldn't put an entire group of people into a box and insist they all should think alike. I think too much of individualism and free choice to label all people of an ethnic group as like-thinking and said no such thing that R & P are self-hating. I would never claim to know how or why people think the way they do, and they shouldn't be making that claim either. Each person has the right to believe what they believe and not be criticized for it simply because they fall outside of expected norms.
Posted by: Cads | January 18, 2008 7:31 PM
Jim,
What a great piece this is. Thanks for your insight and leadership.
Posted by: Conrad Steinhoff | January 18, 2008 9:06 PM
Cads,
You said "my racism was showing." Like I was treating my own people as if they are inferior to me. That's pathetic, I mean seriously. Look I don't hate black conservatives because they are black, better yet I don't hate them at all, nor do I think they are inferior to me. I think they are misguided and that they really do a great deal of damage to the community. But they are not evil.
So when you use the word racism please understand it's meaning.
I also think they are not only misguided but they are also confused. It's like a log cabin republicans. Why be part of party that is against everything that our African slave and freed ancestors fought for? It baffles me. That makes me angry but that anger is not hate. It's anger at injustice. If you don't understand what I mean by that then please ask.
Oh and before you assume my meaning just ask. There is no accepted way of thinking. Contrary to the sterotypical myth many conservatives love to live by we are not some monolithic group. But there are multiple ways to make sure that the majority or group are taken care of. For some reason (greed) black conservatives don't want that. That's worthy of my scorn. Please notice I have not attacked them as people just their half assed, destructive, indivualistic ideology.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 18, 2008 10:04 PM
Cads,
Ofcourse people deserve criticism when their ideology and individuality is used to cause harm to a lot of people.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 18, 2008 10:07 PM
Rick,
Isn't it funny how conservatives on this blog jump to the defense of black conservatives? It's funny. I mean seriously (ROFl.) It's like watching the blind lead a parade off a cliff.
Anywho I agree the hypocrisy is nuts to watch. It's like watching someone bathe in vomit. The most annoying thing is that they recieved affirmative action to get to where they are and don't want anyone else to reap the benefits that were given to them.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 18, 2008 10:15 PM
P: "But there are multiple ways to make sure that the majority or group are taken care of."
And therein lies the basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe individuals should take care of themselves while liberals believe in entitlements where entire groups are taken care of.
Oh well, I've enjoyed the discussion. I'm off on vacation to help jump-start the economy. Back in a week.
Posted by: Cads | January 19, 2008 5:53 AM
Conservatives believe individuals should take care of themselves while liberals believe in entitlements where entire groups are taken care of.
Conservatives have never had an answer to this question: What if the poor cannot even access the resources to take care of themselves? That's where your characterization of liberals breaks down.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 8:45 AM
Love is patient.....it is not easily angered.....it keeps no record of wrongs....
Blessings,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 19, 2008 9:12 AM
Love also doesn't countenance evil, and it rejoices in the truth.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 12:52 PM
you are absolutely right, Rick. Sadly, I see no rejoicing here at all. Just trashing "evil" Republicans.
Can you name any problem whose failed solution liberals need to take a substantial amount of blame for? And "we didn't fight the Republicans hard enough" is not the kind of truthful confession I'm hoping for.
Blessings,
P.S. Just noticed this: "FWIW, I repented of my racism when I was a teenager." So now you hate Republicans. While it sounds like you attend a fantastic church, I'm worried.......
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 19, 2008 4:35 PM
Rick doesn't hate republicans. Trust me I have some friends on the left that could show you what true hatred looks like. He's just not putting up w/ their crap which is totally different from hate.
Cads,
The basic lie that you said is that we believe in entitlements, like you don't. As long as it's for the rich, the powerful your side is all about that. But the poor they have to work hard for everything.
oh and let me correct you on another thing. I support self and interdependent development. I am a green party hippy. I believe we can't rely on governments to change the situations in our lives but they can be a good tool. They should be used as such.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 19, 2008 5:02 PM
you are absolutely right, Rick. Sadly, I see no rejoicing here at all. Just trashing "evil" Republicans.
Who have refused to take responsibility for what they have done and continue to do so -- and blame everyone else in the process.
Can you name any problem whose failed solution liberals need to take a substantial amount of blame for?
No, truthfully, because they've done relatively little. What "failures" they're blamed for can always be attributed to other factors, usually beyond their control.
So now you hate Republicans. While it sounds like you attend a fantastic church, I'm worried.......
Oh, I don't hate Republicans -- I've even dated some. I do not respect the conservative agenda, however, and never have done so because it operates at the expense of everyone else. That is simply incompatible with the Jesus I know (though, of course, imperfectly).
Ironically, lately I've noticed a little bit of persecution of evangelical Christians from secular conservatives -- I've said for years that they were never our friends, and now I have proof.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 19, 2008 5:07 PM
Ironically, lately I've noticed a little bit of persecution of evangelical Christians from secular conservatives -- I've said for years that they were never our friends, and now I have proof.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
Rick I have always seen this from the onset of my political activitism . From the very late 80's .
The secular conservatives , I call them the country club republicans , have always been in mostly in charge . There was a moment there , but ?
And therein lies the basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe individuals should take care of themselves while liberals believe in entitlements where entire groups are taken care of.
Posted by: Cads
Well that is pretty cut and dry there Cads , but considering what is stated by some here in what the right believes in it is quite moderate and somewhat accurate . When Bush brought the idea of compassionate conservatism I pictured it as reaching out to the poor but with successful results , helping the poor to me is the poor eventually not needing that help . That is true compassion in my view . That is where the
liberals turn me off , they exchange scapegoating of minorities and illegals for the rich, Paris Hilton and corporate welfare . Same method , just different scapegoats . To get elected they need poor . The republicans use the their scape goats for sure to gather support , but kind of amazing here the lefties appear to believe their coalition of powers in their party are pure .
Their policies don't help people pay to pay taxes that are not now , they encourgage people to rely on others paying taxes . The right appears to think as Rick says , just cut them off and they will make it .
If you took the left and right , and joined them together in a mutally respectful approach , well I guess that is why Barak and Huckabee inspire so many .
Posted by: Mick | January 20, 2008 3:57 PM
From the very late 80's. The secular conservatives, I call them the country club republicans, have always been in mostly in charge. There was a moment there, but?
Nope -- at least where I live, the country-club Republicans, which tended to be socially liberal were pushed out by said conservatives.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 20, 2008 5:26 PM
Hi Jim.
Great post. The political wind will also change when we start allowing God to guide us in our decision making. We need to let Him be our guide. I discuss this in great detail in my book, Pray Before You Vote! Jesus Is Not a Democrat or a Republican! Jesus Is Lord! www.praybeforeyouvote.org
Keep up the great work!
Posted by: Freya Williams | January 21, 2008 3:02 PM
Nope -- at least where I live, the country-club Republicans, which tended to be socially liberal were pushed out by said conservatives.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
On the bottom rung of the ladder sure I agree . When I got involved that had just happened in the convention before , possibly two conventions before . The conservatives took control of many local county Parties . I was in the "In group" I guess. Honestly I was not sure why in the beginning .
Even some states , and you are spot on , many of the Country Club Republicans were socially liberal , or perhaps moderate at times . But Not pushing for abortion rights and other liberal causes , but not pushing against them either . Made them feel "uncomfortable" .
And many were content to have "status" . I call it the McCoys and Hatfields . I know many in both corners . I have seen some changes over the years .
But the folks calling the shots , and the ones running for office in the higher offices have always been the country club/ corporate / types for the most part . Great example , George Senior not understanding how a grocery checkout stand works .
But as Wolevrine pointed out Rick , many of the social conservative Christians have gone home . Not as Wallis comes on as switching over .
Too bad , because one view I totally agree with him on is that Christians need to get involved on a larger scale . I enjoy watching C span , even local access of local meetings . My wife laughs at me , she is the one who told me that I should open my eyes when we first got married . I had no clue . I have even gone to Inner Faith Alliance Meetings , which shares similiar political beliefs as the supporters here .
Christians who share my faith may comeout to a Pro Life rally , but will not come out to a school board meeting . I have spent many times at community meetings and was not the only conservative , but the only republican at civic meetings . Maybe I have a real tainted view because of that , just when i hear you talkign about the rights cultural dominance I have no clue from my personal experience to see that .
But if its anything like the liberal dominance in my area , I can understand why you feel left out .
The belief that it makes Conservative Christians one dimensional is politically accurate I guess, but the prioties of people in my Faith group are local , family oriented , Church oriented , and despite your bias opinions , do more giving to help causes that you support then liberal churches . They do not support your politcal beliefs and right your belief of social justice .
Show a little tolerance Rick , you say you did not understand it either till King showed you .
Conservatives do support many of your theological beliefs I gather , and that structure of giving is Bible based , its not that Conservatives are better Christians , more spirtual , its the Bible Framework they believe structures their lives to do so . God honors that I believe also .
He has in the lives of me and my wife . We have been blessed By Him .
Happy King Day by the way If that is ok with you .
Mick
Posted by: Mick | January 21, 2008 4:05 PM
But the folks calling the shots, and the ones running for office in the higher offices have always been the country club/ corporate / types for the most part. Great example, George Senior not understanding how a grocery checkout stand works.
Long considered a squish by conservatives, he was neither considered nor accepted as a true conservative.
...when I hear you talking about the rights cultural dominance I have no clue from my personal experience to see that. But if its anything like the liberal dominance in my area, I can understand why you feel left out.
I live in arguably the most liberal area of my state, and that doesn't mean a whole lot. The "left" does not have its own well-funded infrastructure comparable to the right; one of its primary figures is just a long walk away from me. The "left" had precious little presence in evangelical Christianity and what little there was in the church was marginalized until about three years ago.
They do not support your politcal beliefs and right your belief of social justice.
Well, that's a problem -- for them, because it always was Biblical (and thank God people are waking up to that fact). About a decade ago I wrote a tribute to Dr. King for a local Christian newspaper and a letter was published in response accusing him of being a Communist, among other things. Around here that was the prevailing view about him.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 21, 2008 5:48 PM
Christian newspaper and a letter was published in response accusing him of being a Communist, among other things. Around here that was the prevailing view about him.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
And so many folks use his legacy as a political hammer to promote just that .
"The "left" had precious little presence in evangelical Christianity and what little there was in the church was marginalized until about three years ago."
And a good reason for that is the lefts Evangelcial contributions have been so watered down with my way or the highway politically . Love is considered unimportant , as you stated and show in your posts and not those who just agree with you politcally , but your abusiveness moral and spirtual superiority . .
Its not what it is all about , and the Left just does not have a clue . Not ignorant , they prefer to be with the godless , not to Evangelize , but to politicize .
Big difference . Dating a republican proves your openness ? Give me a break .
Posted by: Mick | January 21, 2008 8:03 PM
And a good reason for that is the left's Evangelcial contributions have been so watered down with my way or the highway politically.
Mick -- please. We were the bastard child in evangelicalism, that people wanted to hide, and we were never involved political to the extent that the conservatives were. Even now, Jim Wallis, Ron Sider and Tony Campolo take considerable abuse from conservatives. (Of course, they're used to it now.)
Love is considered unimportant, as you stated and show in your posts and not those who just agree with you politcally, but your abusiveness moral and spirtual superiority.
Of course you think I'm abusive, as you would with anyone who makes strong statements challenging your positions. Well, sometimes "love" means "telling it like it is" even if you offend someone. I don't you if you have kids -- I don't -- but even I know that sometimes you have to take the whip to them when they get out of line, and conservatives have rarely been taken to task for the way they have always abused people and in many cases still do -- and blaspheme God in the process. (Think of Jesus clearing out the Temple on Palm Sunday.) Do you think that the conservative agenda is crumbling as I write because the "liberals" are attacking it? Get real -- it's being shown for the fraud it always has been and has nothing to do with its critics.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 21, 2008 11:00 PM
I say this in love: you two need to take a time-out.
Posted by: carl copas | January 22, 2008 11:58 AM
carl copas -- This is, in one strange sense, fun for me. It's like going up to bat; no matter how hard the pitcher tries to throw it I always get good wood because I know exactly what's coming.
That said, let's get back to the topic. We need to understand that, as King said, "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated." Changing laws was necessary, but in that context laws were almost beside the point -- justice and reconciliation were the ends and law was part of the means.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 22, 2008 12:30 PM
It's fun to watch if you like train wrecks. Kidding. But we do need to increase the dialogue on this site.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 22, 2008 12:35 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?