"But have the following issues been primary in this primary election season?"

While it is sad that these real issues of our time are left out of the political arena unfortunately it is not a new omission on the part of the presidential candidates. To take it one step further congressional delegates and senators rarely run on a platform that includes actual foreign policy and focused domestic spending. The "issues" today are a joke to those watching our political theater overseas and I can't say that I blame them.

Aaron

http://aaronstewart.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Aaron Stewart | January 24, 2008 10:09 AM

Politicians talk about what people talk about and there aren't enough people who care about those issues to elect a dog catcher.

People don't care about poverty? About our failed foreign policy? About Darfur and Kenya?

Maybe there are such people, but they must be awfully self-centered, as well as oblivious to the world around them.

The last time I heard anyone in real life talk about global warming was to laugh at it at last Sunday's Packer's game.

I don't know what world you inhabit, Charles, but this hasn't been my experience. I don't hear any people laughing.

Go right ahead and keep your head in the sand, Charles. But don't expect the rest of us to take any of your comments seriously.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 24, 2008 11:09 AM

Go right ahead and keep your head in the sand, Charles. But don't expect the rest of us to take any of your comments seriously.

Peace,

Posted by: Don

Don Charles is stating perhaps what I encounter all the time among many people . Example say Property Rights in a big Conservative issue to many people in my area . But basically small farmers and passionate supporters . Not the basic middle , lower middle , and poor citizen .

"Side Note I heard King speak about it in his Riverside speech as being a non issue also , I wondered about it because where I live it is based on regulations and such , wondered what it was back then . King gave it as an example of a non issue with little importance ." Must be a republican thing .

But I see property rights as important also , many people say planned on selling their land as a retirement support only to find land zoning and envirnomental concerns have changed their plans and value they could get for their land .
Anyway, as a political point , a person like me , and the vast majority of people say have little concern of our own small lot where their house is being told they can not build on it , etc . Its not an important issue , but such an important one to a farmer or a land holder . I see it as important because I see it as the state taking something , the use of your land without compensating you . Bt Charles makes a good point , don't underestimate the value of it , you need to speak out on behalf of people suffering , don't expect the normal day to day American to be aware or concerned about it . Many issues here are not important to the average American whatever that is .

You just reminded me of myself and expected everyone to be motivated helping kids and reaching out to those going the wrong way in their life . And I could not figure out why Missions and the other pririorties our church had that seemed to take all the support of the members away from my passion .

Charles is wrong in my opinion to say those issues are not important . But the concern from the average American , I don't think he is off .

Posted by: Mick | January 24, 2008 11:52 AM

Sounds like what some people do with the Bible!

Posted by: I and I | January 24, 2008 12:12 PM

When the (Bill) Clinton campaign put up that "It's the economy, stupid!" the reminder was that most people are motivated primarily by their personal pocketbook issues.

When Ronald Reagan asked the electorate in 1980, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" he was making an appeal to the same primary interest of the voters.

Both men were elected over incumbents.

I have found just the same disinterest in issues of peace and justice among people in municipal politics. In fact, people don't care even about others' property rights, only their own. They don't much care if someone's losing their home or property unjustly, unless there's a fear they could too.

As a municipal leader, I found that in order to get support for policies that addressed injustices, those policies had to be couched in a direct appeal to or threat to the electorate's own pocketbooks. It was sad to have been forced to do this in what I considered in my own view to be a rather cynical manner, because sometimes the injustices addressed could indeed have been ignored by the majority withoutaffecting them personally.

My own belief is that we are not so disconnected and that when an injustice happens to another, it happens to me, too. The world has become a terrible place through our alienation from ourselves and one another, a consequence of our break with God. We have lost our true position in the world, towards ourselves and towards the creation, with all the consequent ills multiplying. Trying to draw our attention to the remedy, Jesus asked us to consider that if we love Him, then sacrificing for "the least of these" (even our enemy) is the same as doing it for Him.

I do have to say that as things stand now, we are no better or worse than people anywhere else in the world, as we like to deceive ourselves. Our motto, generally, is, "I'm alright Jack, keep your hand off my stack."
Ultimately, that philosophy on both sides (the person or nation with the stack, and the person or nation that wants it) leads to murder and on societal scales, to war.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 24, 2008 12:52 PM

Dr. Dobson talks about his own grandkids so much these days, you'd think his Focus was on his own Family.

Hey! Maybe it was, all along. Like many others, the issues that motivate him are the ones that are limited to affecting those interests.

People experiencing serious problems don't find it all that interesting that his grandkids are the cutest in the world either.

It certainly seems that he couldn't care less about immigrant families and their children, for example. Or for how families are affected by illness when there's no health insurance once they lose their jobs.

Or for how offshoring and outsourcing by his political allies and wealthy baord members affects families whose parents no longer have jobs.

Or how his emphasis on reducing taxes for wealthy families like his and theirs impacts there being no safety net for the families whose dire straits he ignores.

This is why there was applause about the demise of the credibility of the Religious Right, not simply an anti-god bias.

It's the hypocrisy, stupid!

And it's not even conservative, from either a scriptural or genuinely moral conservative position, either.

Posted by: Ex Focus | January 24, 2008 1:03 PM

With concern about the paragraph starting with "But have the following issues been primary..." There is one candidate that put these issues at the forefront of his platform from the very beginning. He addressed them in at least two interviews that I know of and he wove some of them together to show that on both the domestic and global stages solutions to these issues are interdependent. Unfortunately he was not given equal press early-on (or now) because of the hype given to the two frontrunners. Please, do your research on John Edwards.

Posted by: Paul S. | January 24, 2008 1:27 PM

After receiving the sojo mail this morning, I wrote the following response to Jim. Perhaps it is worth sharing here:

Jim,

It was great seeing you last night at Politics and Prose. Between then and now, I received your email this morning regarding the current election. While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, It strikes me that you have forgotten, much like the media has, about the one candidate that has brought, and continues to bring, these issues to the forefront in this election, John Edwards, and his message of hope and restoration while focusing on the two celebrity candidates dubbed "change" and "experience." You made reference to the "hope" of Obama last night, but have forgotten John's mantra when talking about all of these issues 4 years ago, that "hope is on the way!" John has made poverty, both here and across the globe, his core issue. HIs hope and optimism could not be more clear when spreading this message (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzIxdUvTWEI). His message is not simply one of empty hope, but rather he has outlined ambitious and detailed plans and goals for ending poverty in this country. John has also been very outspoken about the Iraq war, including highlighting the money and corruption wasted with issues surrounding Blackwater and others. He has highlighted the very same travesty that you highlighted last night - that the money wasted on preemptive wars could be used to prevent wars through education and public welfare programs throughout the world. And John is the only candidate of the top three with a firm commitment to stopping the bleeding over there, both fiscal and physical.

John has been a leader on universal healthcare. He was the first with a detailed plan and he continues to raise it to the top as a priority issue. John leads the way with a truly comprehensive and self-consistent plan regarding global warming. Unlike the others, he sees through the illusory promise of nuclear power - an option that is not supported in the long view and that carries its own public health and national security risks. He also has addressed coal power plants, the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and unlike the others has courageously called for a moratorium on these polluting beasts. And, above and beyond the other two candidates, he has repeatedly called for patriotic change in the lives of individuals, including reevaluating the type of cars that we drive. Not a political winner, but positions necessitated by the harsh reality.

John's view of the Iraq war spills over into his other positions with respect to foreign policy. Where Ms. Clinton has beaten the drum for more preemptive attacks in Iran, John rings the bell of peace and diplomacy. And linking the issues of global poverty and foreign policy, John has indeed been at the forefront on issues like Darfur, the Congo and Kenya. In fact, he demonstrates both an understanding and a passion, as well as concrete plans, to address these issues here: http://www.onevote08.org/ontherecord/edwards.html. While the other candidates have something to say in that discussion, the videos clearly show the understanding John has, the passion and the moral conviction that he brings to the issue, and the concrete policies that he has for addressing the problems of global poverty and disease.

On abortion and the assault on families and children, one needs only to look again at John's voice for the middle and lower class people in this nation. We have seen that with 8 years of promise from Republican leaders, progress with respect to issues like abortion will come through empowering women, providing support for mothers, providing access to education including both second-chance high school programs as well as college, and most importantly providing things like organized labor support, raising the minimum wage, providing universal healthcare, and other measures to bring the middle and lower classes out of poverty so that they have the support to make moral choices.

The issues that you raise, these are the issues that fuel John and his supporters. John has repeatedly indicated that this election is not about him, or Hilary or Barack- as he says, they will all be fine when this is all done. It is about the future of our nation and most importantly, our American people. He has said this time and time again. We saw this focus most recently during Monday's debate (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-OuoLlds9o).

I am deeply saddened by the failure of the media to recognize that John stands up for people - including those that are poor, uninsured, and homeless. He has raised these issues time and time and time again, reframing and shifting the rhetoric among the leading Democrats and forcing them to address these critical points whenever he is given the chance. Once again, se see John leading the way with a discussion of the embarrassing tragedy that is that we have over 200,000 veterans that go homeless every night, just another side of poverty and illness. What saddens me even more Jim, is that you have failed to see this. I don't know if it is because his message has not gotten through the media mess to you, or what it might be. The poor need a voice. The jobless need a voice. The homeless need a voice. The reality is, John is and has been that voice. This remains true, despite the limited media coverage, despite the limited time that he shares in the debates, and despite the media circus that would rather focus on haircuts, race, and whether "Bill Clinton was indeed the first black president" than the issues sitting on outside our front doors.

You spoke last night about building a movement. You spoke about how when you did not have a microphone and you are trying to get your message to a stadium, you had to go around to the small groups so that each could hear your voice and built a movement. This is exactly what this message is about. We don't have a microphone. We don't have the celebrity. We don't have the money. And we clearly don't have the media. But I am coming to you, and I will keep coming until people realize that this is about our moral calling. I have made a web page that is my attempt at creating a microphone, its no cnn, no nbc, and no sojourners, but what it contains is a side of John that the media may not have allowed people to see. One that offers hope for all rather than profits for a few: http://www.gelbin.org/johnedwards.html.

What's more, Jim is that you have the microphone. It is our responsibility to get this message out and support it with every moral fiber in our bodies. I am a huge fan of yours, Jim. And I admire all that you have done to restore faith to its proper role in our society and in our politics. Now the rubber hits the road. Your message, along with my Catholic faith, have brought me to this point. To a point that recognizes that it is not the profits of the drug companies that should determine who gets their lifesaving treatments. To a point that recognizes that it is not the profits of the oil companies that should determine how we care and respect for our fragile planet. And it is not the profits of the media that should determine where, when, and how loud the voice of the American people should be heard.

Your message today struck a chord. I hope this message, and the words and spirit of John contained herein, strike a chord with you.

With respect,

Posted by: Gelbin | January 24, 2008 5:53 PM

Jim Wallis wrote:

Change will grow from social movements, from grassroots efforts that rush up, not trickle down, and from critical culture and values shifts that ultimately will affect politics.

Here's the thing: There is a lot of truth in this, and it would seem to me that a lot of evangelicals are coming to terms with what Wallis is saying here. But is Jim Wallis coming to terms with this himself? Everything else I read from him indicates that the answer is no: his confidence in government programs and mandates as a means of dealing with social problems is not the least bit diminished as far as I can tell.

Neither left nor right has a monopoly on insight, but it is my considered opinion that conservatism is better equipped to deal with the paradigm shift that Wallis describes here, even if the change weakens the religious right over the short term. That's because conservatism has a much more developed understanding of social action outside of the state.

In the realm of culture, family, markets, churches, and informal communities (neighborhoods) we see independent groups of free individuals working together for their own common ends. We see voluntary cooperation whose value is great specifically because it is voluntary. The left meanwhile forces these groups into -- and ultimately under -- the brooding omnipresence of the State.

Aside from physical safety, there is little that the state can offer to the church in the fulfillment of its ancient mission of ministering to the sick and broken and making disciples.

Yes, government has tremendous resources, but especially in an advanced, prosperous society such as the US, with a reasonably even (really!) distribution of wealth, material resources are not the issue. The real problem confronted by the poor in the US is isolation from values and communities that offer meaning and hope. These are things that a government cannot be the main providers of except at considerable risk.

This is the point where I think that the Sojo community needs to consider Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. One of the hallmarks of fascist societies is that the state ascribes to itself the role of providing "meaning" to people's lives, and may see a threat in any other institution, such as the church, that claims a similar "existential" role. The notion of a "politics of meaning" is a flirtation with fascism.

Consequently, I do not expect to see evangelicals embrace liberalism with any particular ardor. There is little for them to gain from the expansion of the state, even if that expansion is for humanitarian purposes, and there is much for them to lose if the state expands too far.

This is not to say that liberalism is indistuinguishable from fascism, or that there isn't an honest Christian case to be made for expanding this government program or that. But there are important philosophical reasons why evangelicals rejected the left. Those reasons did not all vanish even as evangelicals loosen their ties with the right.

If Jim Wallis really wants to persuade disaffected evangelicals to join him, he'll need to show that his liberalism will still leave room for the church to be the church. He also might want to consider just why it is that social movements outside of governments move so much faster than government, and whether or not that might actually be a form of mercy.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 24, 2008 5:57 PM

Dear Jim,

You have inspired me to pen the 4th in my ongoing series:

"We Have it in our power to begin the world again"-Tom Paine

On the WAWA blog NOW is Part 4:

A Greater Awakening: 21st Century Letter to the Churches in the USA...

The Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners Magazine, the Evangelical Jim Wallis has released a new book, The Great Awakening, written with hope to wake up American institutionalized Christians to be a part of the rebirth and renewal to heal, mend and transform "the biblical scandal of poverty around the globe and here at home, the crisis of environmental degradation and climate change that pose a threat to God's creation, and to the multiple assaults on human life and dignity that shame our world." [Page 12, Feb. 2008, SOJOURNERS]

Jim's seeking revival, but this non-institutional Christian of The Beatitudes, is calling for a revolution.......

Christ, you know it ain't easy
You know how hard it can be
The way things are going
They're gonna crucify me-John Lennon

WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Posted by: eileen fleming | January 24, 2008 6:39 PM

"This is the point where I think that the Sojo community needs to consider Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. One of the hallmarks of fascist societies is that the state ascribes to itself the role of providing "meaning" to people's lives, and may see a threat in any other institution, such as the church, that claims a similar "existential" role. The notion of a "politics of meaning" is a flirtation with fascism." Wolverine

That is certainly a new way of approaching the issue, Wolverine. New, but not valid. From everything I have seen you post here, Facism has been the least of your concerns.

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 24, 2008 6:48 PM

Wolverine,

Very good synopsis of the issue at hand. thank you for your thoughts. And I think that you and Rick are actually in agreement even tho he doesn't think so. You aren't saying that conservatives want to run everything or that some problems aren't structural. It is just that conservatism allows for those injustices to be addressed and changed by the populace, not the state, which really goes nowhere. Am I off here?

Posted by: catherine | January 24, 2008 7:03 PM

JamesMartin--If categories such as fascism or liberalism are to be applied in our dialogue, they need to be considered in a definitive way. I have not read Jonah Goldberg's book--only heard him interviewed. But he seems to attempt a historical breakdown of the terms and societies to which they have been applied.

I thought Wolverine's comment was concise and clear--to which I have no problem if you disagree vociferously. But I also believe he attempts to bring in the Goldberg angle as a way to consider these categories (liberalism, fascism) in reflecting critically on our society, government, politics, etc.--and to do so with some clarity of definitions.

I would welcome opportunity to read a critical response to Wolverine. The one phrase response you made to him doesn't really help me out.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 24, 2008 8:17 PM

PS - At least get the terminology straight. Fascism, as practiced paradigmatically in Italy in the 20s and 30s, is a system of government in which the interests of business and industry are identified with those of the state and the people. Sound familiar?

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 24, 2008 8:42 PM

Jonah Goldberg admits that his motivation for writing his first book was payback to some verbally injudicious liberals for conflating conservatism and fascism, by writing a polemic accusing them of just the same thing.

Jonah, son of literary agent Lucianne Goldberg who rose to fame and approbation among Rush Limbaugh conservatives by taperecording Monica Lewinsky's confessions of fellatio with a sitting President, gained his own main chance to earn a living as a professional conservative by holding onto his mother's skirts.

Much of his analysis is akin to oversimplifying that since fascists breathe oxygen to live, and since liberals do too, they are therefore related. This is a vastly underwhelming sort of arguing. In a way, though, Goldberg's right - the temptation of will to power and the compromising along the way are a universal human failings that exclude no one, regardless, But this hardly proves that liberalism is at its core fascist any more than small-town small-c conservatism is, either - regardless of conservatives like Father Coughlin's or Charles Lindbergh's sympathies with the Nazis during the thirties.

No less a figure than William F. Buckley protoge and former National Review board member Austin Bramwell has reviewed Goldberg's book and found its arguments childish , and he chides Goldberg for making the motivation for his book revenge.

It's a bit ridiculous for a member of the right, with all its genuflections to imperial authority and championing a national security state without habeas corpus, to try to make out the liberal kettle blacker than their dark pot.

In reality, the authoritarian excesses we have to deal with today are mainly opposed by liberals, with the only principled conservative opposition coming from the paleo-conservative American Conservative, not from Goldberg's employer, The National Review. NR has been in lockstep with blind support of any and all authoritarian (crypto-fascist?) measures suspending the constitution for the duration (which is supposed to last longer than our lives) of the vast "islamo-fascist" conflict.

In reality, Goldberg simply proves with his simplistic bad-faith arguments what "1984" author George Orwell, an anti-communist and anti-fascist, observed more than fifty years ago, that the word "fascism" had lost any meaningful content except to use as an insulting epithet against one's political enemies, whatever their ideology actually is.

Bramwell characterizes Goldberg as having moved away from being a a kind of chipper neo-con humorist. I would say that with this book he's become a kind of humorless neo-con ideologue with a very large chip on his shoulder.

You can real Goldberg's book, and see if you agree with my and Bramwell's assessment. Bramwell's is found at the current www.amconmag.com website.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 24, 2008 9:58 PM

Our desire is not to "run everything", at least not in terms of domestic policy. Our desire is to allow individuals, families, and churches more latitude to run their own affairs.

No conservative activist really believes that; if that were the case conservatives would themselves have attacked segregation, poverty etc. with their own resources. Instead, they spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few decades to sway opinion to ensure that didn't happen, to enforce what may be called social Darwinism.

Did I ever say that political activism -- or state intervention -- was per se wrong?

You're leaning that way, truth be told, because, going back to the King example, who were his biggest opponents?

It is just that conservatism allows for those injustices to be addressed and changed by the populace, not the state, which really goes nowhere.

The track record of conservatism, however, suggests otherwise. When John and Bobby Kennedy were talking about what to do about the South, they both admitted that it would "never reform." You have to remember that its opposition to the civil-rights movement was based on what it considered the influence of "outside agitators," including the Federal government; some of them even said -- and probably believed -- that "our Negroes were happy until those Northern interlopers showed up." It's why few African-Americans speak kindly of the conservative agenda.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 24, 2008 11:30 PM

Rick--What does the necessity of federal action to end segregation and guarantee civil rights prove? Does that outline your preferred role for a federal government; or your necessary role?

I prefer no Federal action to regulate how women steward thier reproductive lives. But if a society insists, in practice, to disregard and fundamentally assault unborn humanity; and a Federal Court finds a constitutional right to that practice; then the undesirable federal action to regulate individual freedom and responsibility is required.

Is not the 'external law' always a weak substitute for the internal beliefs, values and norms of a people?? And at the end of the day, given your distrust of those who lord power--why would you have one ounce of inherent trust in the State to act justly?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 24, 2008 11:48 PM

So if it's not climate change, or Darfur, or poverty and unemployment, what are those issues? And what makes him think that most Americans are concerned about his issues and not the ones Wallis enumerated? Did he take a poll or something?

Peace,

Posted by: Don

Well actually Don politicians take polls usually . I would expect a politician to talk to those isssues say at a Sojourner Forum , but not on the Jon Stewart show . The politician knows his audience usually .

And Climate Change is an important issue , I was not refering to that . Not defending the mans sarcastic style , or your retort .
I was making a political observation from my own discernment , I guess we can disagree ?

One of the best info commericals I ever saw was when Tony Coppolla use to do a spot for helping the least of us for a religious charity . It was touching , emotional ,spirtual , you could see the poverty on the screen , and it became real .
You connected up with the suffering child . He connected with his audience , but even then he was speaking to a religious audience .

Usually politicians get interested in the third world countries after its too late , when the pictures of the slaughter become mainstream .
Conservative and liberal Christians have tried to get attention of some of these things going on for years .
Jim Wallis might have had the message , secular America was not buying it in my opinion .
In this culture of today , and increasing secular and humanist rationalization .

That is a compliment in my opinion .

Posted by: Mick | January 25, 2008 1:51 AM

"...regardless of the puerility of its intellectual content."

ST-Wow. I rather assume you did not waste your time reading such a hack devoid of intellectual content. Is my assumption correct? I just seek clarity. I have not read the book. If you had I was interested in his basic theme and your critique of the argument.

Did he equate liberalism with fascism or that fascism was a product of the left (or something else)?

Blessings.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 25, 2008 5:31 AM

Eileen - I don't think anyone in their right mind would want a real revolution. Can you name many revolutions that resulted in a better life for people? Chaos and a complete breakdown of whatever it was that held a society together are usually what follows most revolutions, at least the type that Tom Paine desired. Yes, Tom Paine was a radical. Do you we really want another radical taking control here in the U.S.? If you're talking about a "Brian McLaren, everything about our mindsets must change revolution" then that's one thing, but I don't think you want a "Tom Paine, literally upset the entire society" type of revolution.

Posted by: Eric | January 25, 2008 6:58 AM

My previous comment was in response to Wolverine's comment: "Reading the comments of Sojourner Truth and James Martin, I can tell that between Jonah and me we've managed to strike a nerve."

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 25, 2008 9:30 AM

To: Let justice roll down

I appreciate the direction you take in addressing labels. I'm not anti-label, I'm more of a label analyst. I observe labels as condensed delivery mechanisms for deeper meanings. I enjoy creating new labels and cliches for quick transport of deeper meaning and I daily play in the field of words, picking my favorites and disgarding those that naturally disgust me. I believe this to be a daily activity of all humans.
Because I enjoy living as much as possible in the big picture view, I lean towards generalized terms that unite humans as well as including the the details that highlight our uniqueness and differences. I call it living in the mix. I remind myself consistently, that we are all a mix of many, often-times paradoxical, meanings, impressions and expression. We, in the Human-we, demonstrate this ndividually and collectively. As the Human-we we are a vast and evolving mix of charachters with a single identy as human and if we spend any time with our own self we see the same trait in our indivual stories. I am a vast and evolving mix of characters with a single identity as me. We are living examples of the reciprocation of the macro and the micro.
So, I've had similar experience to you when it comes to dualistic treatments of human relations such as liberal/conservative or pro-government/anti-government or pro/anti anything. Quite frankly, to me there is no government in and of itself. We speak of government as if it is a self-generating entity that has real wealth, real power and real presence separate from human influence. What we are calling the government is a grand scale creation of collective human meaning.
In the big picture (BP) there are humans and resources that support human life and human creative activity. The "governments" money is actually the pooled resources of collectives of humans (The collective of American wage earners paid over a trillion in dollars into that pool just last year in voluntary income tax alone.). The "governements" power is really the collective agreements and influence of humans sharing geographical space and cultural meanings. The presence of any "government" exists in this world at the literal whim of human creation.
We humans are infinite creators of reality sharing a physical existence and a story. We are all living a human meaning, all of our stories are contributing and being contributed to by the story of humanity.
Right now our story is in simultaneous crisis and transformation. Ours is a shared crisis of meaning, ours s a shared story of human transformation. Are we headed for self-annihlation? I don't believe so. I believe we are coming to the end of our self destructive tendencies through human breakdown.
I'm speaking here of the kind of breakdown that leads to breakthrough. We are a collective addict reaching our collective bottom and there is great hope for our collective renewal in the wake of these last throws of our fear addicted selves. We stand at the threshold of our own self redemption through the new tendency among us to "freely choose love and friendship".
I do not call myself a christian but, I do claim Jesus as a personal friend to my life and story. I remember that he said, "No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his friends." I believe when we focused on the idea that this was a message that sacrifice is the greatest form of love, we took a wrong turn. We made a collective mistake.
I focus on the fact that he said, "... lay down his life for his FRIENDS". He didn't say lay down his life for his family or government or ideas or even god. He said FRIENDS. I believe if we would have spent the last 2000 years focusing on friendship and being FRIENDS to each other we would today be living the peace he spoke of and we would have long ago created heaven on earth. I believe we in the Human-we ARE friends in mind and spirit and that we can cast aside the notion that sacrfice equals love, that someone has to lose for it to be love. I believe that we can espouse the meanings of friendship and create a new world and a peaceful revolution in our shared story as human people. In friendship we are not pressed into the win/lose scenarios that perpetuate suffering. As friends we are drawn to and seek the win/win scenarios that create the flowing peace of comradere. Friend to Jesus, firend to myself, friend to all. Friend is a label I freely choose.

peace all-ways, reverndk

Posted by: reverendk | January 25, 2008 10:28 AM

"It proved to mean only that conservatives didn't want to answer to anybody, which was and is the real issue, one which you apparently support..."

Rick-Your response lost me. I'm not saying I disagree. Just couldn't crank my mind up in the Minnesota January air to follow.

Jim Wallis argues for a social movement that provides a groundswell action on which Federal officials can enact change.

Wolverine argues conservatism is better equipped to deal with the paradigm shift necessary for change.

You highlighted the Federal engagement in advancement of civil rights, demonstrating conservatism was anything but capable of producing necessary reform.

I just wished to clarify whether you viewed that type of Federal intervention as the preferred, best, or normative means of change.

This is not an "either-or" equation. Every citizen, institution, church, and unit of government bear responsibility to steward all that has been granted us with justice.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 25, 2008 10:48 AM

Posted by: Wolverine | January 24, 2008 11:56 PM

"Another Nonymous, to his credit, asks an intelligent question, even if that wasn't necessarily his original intent."

Uh, thanks, I guess.

"Is the religious right trying to impose it's sense of "meaning" on people? Because it has never attempted to silence other religions or philosophies the answer is no."

Whoa, I don't even know where to start. If I were to cite any single individual on the religious right who has explicitly tried to do that, you could describe that person as an exception, so all I can say is that from my perspective, that is exactly what they have uniformly tried to do from the get-go, often belligerently and insultingly. How do I know this? Because as a liberal Christian - and I'm going to stick with the label rather than resorting to progressive - I have been one of those "other religions and philosophies" that they've been trying to silence.

Re. fascism, I also can't help but point out that it was William F. Buckley, in the National Review, who described Francisco Franco as "an authentic national hero." The same person also wrote in the same source, that as to the question "whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which is does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes - the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." (Check out pp. 102-103 of Paul Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal for the full citation; it's an eye-opener.) This doesn't sound like a mainstream voice to me, and I think it's a measure of the extent to which our entire polity has moved to the right that it can now be perceived that way - if those early quotes are brushed under the carpet.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 25, 2008 11:12 AM

does being jailed 20 times have some sort of meaning, other than law breaking?

You might want to ask Martin Luther King Jr. about that sometime -- his point was to demonstrate persecution due to an abusive system. Sometimes it's necessary to challenge the "system" and going to jail might be part of that.

the type of person i am tired of is the professional, over educated, religious salesmen. the person who has usurped the leadership of the "church". the person who puts his mixture of politics and religion out as christianity. wallis and sojourners is what it is.

It is, frankly, totally unjust and unfair of you to compare someone who's ministered on the streets for well over 30 years, before it became a "hot" issue, to someone spouting shibboleths about cultural power and financial prosperity but, sadly, never about the sacrifices necessary to follow Christ. Those are the types of people you should be railing against.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 25, 2008 11:58 AM

Polls vs. Votes?
"There is no doubt that the op-scans were manipulated in the New Hampshire primary, as Hillary won by six points where the votes were counted by those gadgets, while Obama won by six points where the ballots were hand-counted–and, contrary to a lot of comfy punditry, there was actually no demographic factor that explains the difference. (I suspect that Republicans manipulated the machines, to ensure that Hillary will be the candidate they run against.) The startling outcome in New Hampshire also helped to wake some people up: Bill Maher spoke very powerfully about it on his show, along with Catherine Crier and Mark Cuban; and when Tony Snow, predictably, attempted to make all of them sound crazy, he only made himself look ludicrous. The audience was clearly on the other side. It marked a real breakthrough, as Maher had never yet dared to touch the subject of election fraud." (From an interview of author Mark C Miller by Scott Horton which appeared in Harper's Magazine Blog)

There is more troubling our country than shifting insecurities , fears, and exaggerated political divisions. Bribery , electoral criminality, and a large law-breaking power grab by the executive branch have made it hard to believe that a government which reflects the will of its citizens is possible under the current arrangements of power. People with real visions of change, Kucinich, Ron Paul, Edwards are ridiculed, excluded, and pushed to the fringes, especially if they don't like the military industrial war complex.

Meanwhile , despite the mantra of "change", forms of militarism reminiscent of the 3rd reich thrive as revealed in this news item from Demaocracy Now:" A group of former top military commanders in NATO countries including the U.S. are calling on their governments to insist on the right to preemptive nuclear attack. In a new manifesto, the former army leaders—including ex-joint chiefs of staff chair, General John Shalikashvili—say NATO should maintain that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument.” The group says this is in part because there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.” The proposal is likely to be reviewed at a NATO summit in April.

Evangelicals continue to fight over who is "conservative" enough for them, and the MSM continues to effectively ignore the citizens of the US and any reformer with the guts to say anything substantive.

The greed-driven Reagan, Bush, Greenspan, Friedman economy is a massive failure for all but the very rich. The bubble blown and war popped Economy looks increasingly like a giant loan-sharking operation and none of the candidates is addressing the underlying structural problems or proposing viable answers.

We must find a way toward hope, toward the rule of law enlightened by compassion and wisdom, toward peaceable and creative solutions. As Americans we must find our way back from a military empire to the vision of a house on a hill, a citizen's army, a nation among nations. As Christians we must learn to accept differences and measure ourselves by the fruit of the spirit rather than the perfection of our theology or escahtology. I hope Jim's book helps, because right now, things look bad.

Posted by: jonabark | January 25, 2008 12:05 PM

...and not to mention the Rev. Falwell's condoning of apartheid (in so many code words), with nary a peep of protest from the Religious Right's rank and file. No, Wolverine, opposition to SA apartheid was primarily the province of American liberals in the 1970's and 1980's, with some of the Howard Baker Republicans joining in. It was not a "conservative cause," much as you seem to wish it were so.

Posted by: I and I | January 25, 2008 12:12 PM

Reagan developed a policy of constructive engagement that ultimately proved effective at bringing down apartheid, and (apologies to Ovid and Virgil) them's de factos.

Hardly -- "constructive engagement" did absolutely nothing to bring down apartheid, nor was it supposed to -- basically, that and an executive order were designed to head off sanctions that had grown popular in Congress and that Carter supported, and a sanctions bill eventually was passed over Reagan's veto. (The actions of the U.S. Congress thus joined the rest of the world.)

Anyway, so much for conservatives supporting freedom.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 25, 2008 12:37 PM

As a conservative at the time, I don't think you could say we were in the forefront of change in South Africa. I think you could say we had a de facto opposition, at least in lip service, to apartheid, but that like Israel, we tended to see the regime as an ally, for us in the Cold War against communism, for Israel against the Arabs and that took precedence. Certainly we didn't at the time like Mandela at all and our journals were full of criticisms of Winnie Manela's "necklacing" of those she viewed as opponents, including children, with burning tires around their necks.

During the Cold War, for conservatives, that trumped everything. You could say that like Winston Churchill, we regarded the threat as so existential and visceral that we would have signed up the Devil himself as an ally if he were an enemy or our enemy.

But now I see that is the way of the world - today's ally is tomorrow's enemy and vice versa and there's no end to it - until as even Reagan finally saw, the world is consumed horribly in a nuclear holocaust in which no one wins but the Devil.

I no longer believe that the end justifies the means because now I've lived long enough to see that the means becomes the end.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 25, 2008 12:51 PM

So much for liberals telling the truth or being concerned about it if it does make their revisionist history appear stronger. All I did was show what he said, why uncerned about the truth of I and I. Obviously someone as knowledgable as you should not be afraid of correcting the falsehoods that might make your case appear stronger.

I was actually quite aware of what he said and I immediately discounted it when he did. And as I said earlier, Reagan vetoed a sanctions bill that eventually did pass. Simply put, he was talking through his butt, as politicians often do.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 25, 2008 1:07 PM

My point in bringing that up was to debunk Wolverine's statement that conservatives in a general sense were primarily interested in preserving "freedom," whatever that is. I believed then and still do today that they're interested only building a quasi-aristocracy and threatened by anything that smells of "justice" for the poor and dispossessed.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 25, 2008 1:36 PM

Someday, Rick, I would be interested in you outlining the quasi-aristocracy. Who they are. Their goals. Their strategies, etc. At your leisure.

If you made the most compelling case that such a group exists (even as a goal); it would not account for all political realities.

I suppose the racists of the Old South sought the same. And crippled their states for a century(ies).

Why do you view conservatism as demanding injustice? And, more importantly, why do you view liberalism applied through massive federal bureacracy as any great benefit to justice? The poor and dispossessed obviously need government to faithfully administer all its affairs with justice and an eye to the effect of its actions on the 'least.' But I don't understand why that necessarily leads to conservatism or liberalism.

Sojourner Truth--greatly affirm your last statement, "I no longer believe that the end justifies the means because now I've lived long enough to see that the means becomes the end."

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Jerry--OK, I'll bite as well, even though I probably shouldn't.

"my objection is that he is using christianity to promote his personal political agenda."

I hope you get on conservative Christian blogs and protest just as vehemently that conservative Christianity has also used Christianity to promote their political agenda. That accusation swings both ways.

"his tired ideas require the government to solve his list of problems. his tired ideas neglect the responsibility of the individual."

The conservative Christian agenda does the same thing--for example, they appeal to government to deal with the abortion issue by writing laws outlawing it, rather than addressing the core issue of why abortions occur and finding true, lasting, effective solutions to the problem.

"the type of person i am tired of is the professional, over educated, religious salesmen. the person who has usurped the leadership of the "church". the person who puts his mixture of politics and religion out as christianity."

Again, that accusation goes both ways. I've certainly seen the Religious Right do that all the time. Do you also express your concerns to them? Where I live, there is a very conservative Christian TV station that tells me regularly to sow my seed of $1000 and my life will be so much better than it is now. That person is using Christianity, and posing as a prophet to make a profit. I hope you are spending as much time railing against that chicanery as you are expressing your concerns on this forum.

"i don't think like you and i don't have your knowledge of theology, but there are an awful lot of me's around and you need to deal with that."

That statement comes off as "I have my own beliefs. Don't confuse me with the facts." Rick has a great knowledge of theology, it's true, but you seem to fault him for it. If you recognize he has a solid knowledge of theology, it is your responsibility to study his theology, rather than dismissing him as "just another over-educated intellectual".

You come on here and yell about what Wallis and others is doing wrong, but you don't offer your own solutions. Please join in the conversation rather than belittling the discussion. Surely you have more to offer than these rants.

Posted by: squeaky | January 25, 2008 2:42 PM

Wolverine,
Rick put into words what I was thinking about your defense of conservativism (see his 1-25 1:36 post). Your description of it makes sense to me--I would agree with conservativism if it were as you say it was. It's just not the reality that I have observed, however. Rick's point that conservative's agenda is to "build a quasi-aristocracy and threatened by anything that smells of "justice" for the poor and dispossessed" expresses exactly what many on the left of center have observed. How would you defend your ideals of conservativism against the realities we see in the world?

I would also add that the ideal of conservativism taking the government out of our lives is an overly optimistic view of human nature, and one that is a bit perplexing, especially from a Christian perspective. It argues that people are capable of running their own lives and making the right decisions. We all know that left to our own devices, we will more often than not make our decisions based on our own personal bottom lines: "how will this help me"? We are wired for selfishness, and that is how we will approach the world--no one is righteous. Not even one. The liberal approach of regulation is actually further in keeping with Christian theology, as it recognizes our sinful nature and writes legislation designed to keep it in check for the greater good. I would rather have legislation keeping companies (or even my neighbor) from doing whatever they please, because history has shown us time and time again that left to their own devices, they will take whatever shortcut necessary to expand their bottom line, with little concern for their neighbor, even if it means a polluted environment or unsafe working conditions. It is incredibly idealistic to hope they will do the right thing without any regulation, especially when we know they have not in the past. The same is certainly true of each one of us as individuals.

So, in short, whereas your description of conservativism is a very nice idea, the reality of it is unrealistic in a sinful world.

Posted by: squeaky | January 25, 2008 3:04 PM

Posted by: Wolverine | January 25, 2008 11:59 AM

"Look, those are embarassing quotes, but since you give me snatches of language without a hint of context -- not so much as the decade they were supposedly written in -- I have to consider it highly likely that either you or Krugman are misusing WFB's comments."

Both comments were made during the late 50s. I searched the Franco reference using NR's own archives, and it was printed in an article on 8/1/1959 which, as summarized by NR, "Focuses on the reaction of the newspaper "The New York Post" towards the recent decision of the U.S. Government to cooperate in an economic aid program for Spain. Criticism of the newspaper for its stand against the aid; Defense of the decision of the government by the author, irrespective of the fact that Spain is being ruled by Francisco Franco, a dictator."

This context does indeed make the comment seem a bit more innocuous. Nevertheless, I think it is significant that Buckley chose to call Franco "an authentic national hero," rather than "the best person we're likely to get in Spain for the time being." Franco was, in fact, a fascist dictator, and his fascist dictatorship consisted precisely in his vigorous suppression of dissent: and that is exactly what Buckley commended him for. That this suppression was often violent and contrary to international is a given, and was as well understood then as it is now.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 25, 2008 3:12 PM

I would be interested in you outlining the quasi-aristocracy. Who they are. Their goals. Their strategies, etc. At your leisure.

A capsulized version: Go back to the 1954 Army-McCarthy trials; as you may remember, Sen. Joe McCarthy was on an anti-Red witchhunt (not that there weren't closet communists). Eventually a group of conservative intellectuals were able to convince some financiers to underwrite their views. The next year, National Review was launched.

The conservative movement as most of us understood it was altogether anti-Federal government but had four different components: 1) libertarians, who on principle rebel against "intrusive" government; 2) social conservatives, concerned about things like abortion and gay rights that they feel are fostered by the feds, especially the judiciary and including Southerners who would leave the Democratic Party; 3) economic conservatives, specifically the super-wealthy financiers and business lobbies; and 4) the agressive, anti-Communist "Cold Warriors." They played different roles, too, corresponding to their respective concerns. A number of activists, known colloquially as the "Leave Us Alone" coalition, even now meet every Wednesday morning in the office of anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist and stood generally in opposition to the New Deal, the Great Society and the civil-rights movement (which is why I call them a quasi-aristrocracy).

Upon further inspection, however, it turns out that they had fairly little in common otherwise, which is why the relatively pro-business Bill Clinton was able to split the business groups, who were pretty much funding the whole apparatus, from the "Reagan coalition." That's the real reason Norquist & Co. wanted him dead (politically, of course); just after Clinton was reelected they decided to try have him impeached. (There is no analogous group on the left, primarily because they can't agree on a platform. If that were the case both Bush and Cheney would have been shown the door years ago.)

Why do you view conservatism as demanding injustice? And, more importantly, why do you view liberalism applied through massive federal bureacracy as any great benefit to justice?

Two good questions. One, to be a conservative in practice means that you need an "enemy" to fight that cannot answer (in practice, a scapegoat to blame for all your problems -- Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson, among others, have made their careers by doing just that).

Two, I don't necessarily believe that. When I ran into a racial situation at my church 20 or so years ago I didn't call upon the pastor to fire the offending party, though he might have; I simply told her, fairly forcefully, that I would not tolerate her attitude or behavior. If that could be accomplished privately, all well and good, but there is so much mistrust among blacks toward anything that smacks of conservatism that any attempt to move things to the right is met with considerable opposition, though I must admit that the African-American community (my own race/ethnicity) can be a bit oversensitive.

FWIW, I grew up Reformed and still adhere to most of that theology.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 25, 2008 3:28 PM

Squeaky--if the nature of humanity is at question--do you consider the State to be more naturally inclined towards justice than individuals?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 25, 2008 4:03 PM

Government is ultimately about the use of force, which makes political power more dangerous than economic power.

Not in this country, it isn't -- in fact, our government, especially on the national level, is arguably the weakest in the industrialized world because our system was built to cater to lobbyists. There's a reason why Calvin Coolidge said, "The business of America is business."

Look, in any society some people are going to be more influential than others. That much cannot be avoided. There will always be an aristocracy of some sort.

Granted. But that does not mean that they have to right to use their position to entrench themselves in power in perpetuity, especially in an egalitarian (at least in theory) society such as ours. That's why our system is built the way it is.

What he actually shows is a keen mastery of the obvious, combined with a touching naivete about the intentions of the movement to which he has attached himself.

Oh, I'm not attached to any movement whatsoever. In fact, being in the media I'm loathe as it is to associate with any partisan entity. (Just because I'm not a conservative doesn't make me a liberal, as the two are not necessarily polar opposites.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 25, 2008 4:38 PM

letjusticerolldown,
"if the nature of humanity is at question--do you consider the State to be more naturally inclined towards justice than individuals?"

No, but the nature of a democracy is such that it allows us power over those that govern us, thus keeping it in check (when we are actually involved with it, that is).

Wolverine,

Good points--but you actually pushed me further into a position away from conservativism. The trouble is, humans, and all things that humans construct, whether it be the market or the government, are fallen. We can't have a truly free society where individuals do as they please and see it come to a good end. We can't have a government that totally controls all we do and have that come to a good end. We can't let market take over and have that come to a good end. There needs to be balance--and a balance that uses the best of those three things. Advocating the dominance of any one of those forces over the other places too much faith in any one of those forces.

"Government is ultimately about the use of force, which makes political power more dangerous than economic power."

I would say that economic power is every bit as dangerous. When only those with money have influence, it is very easy for the economically disadvantaged to be exploited. Even more dangerous is when government and the economic powers go hand in hand--which is one of my greatest concerns about the reality of conservativism.

So given the fact that your ideals of conservativism don't match reality, what do you do about it, and how do you hang on to those ideals knowing that the ideal itself will never match reality? Don't make the mistake of thinking I am saying my "liberal" ideals are better than your conservative ones--I ask myself that same question--in fact, you have led me to some bigger questions that are really for all of us, whatever the political stripe.

"We have convinced ourselves that we are pursuing power for the right ends. "

Of course we are. And maybe the real truth is that there is no such thing as any political ideology that is capable of truly pursuing power for the right ends. We have seen it time and time again in our government as the corruption from both the right and left comes to light. It's a wonder anyone can hang on to their political ideals, isn't it? The bigger question to me is, how can any of us, as Christians, follow any political ideology? There is no such thing as a truly Godly political ideology. Politics values power, wealth, and influence. The Kingdom of God is decidedly counter to those values, and yet we keep trying to bring about the Kingdom of God through the flawed, anti-Kingdom system of politics. Can't be done. In fact, some have even argued that nothing any one of us can do can bring about the Kingdom of God because flawed human hands cannot establish it--it can only be a work of the Lord. Which again begs the question why bother at all with politics? Why put so much faith in a flawed system? I don't have the answer to that, and neither am I going to abandon my interest or activities in politics, but these are some of the thoughts that bounce around my head when I really ask myself hard questions.

Posted by: squeaky | January 25, 2008 4:53 PM

I wonder what it would take to get a "bi-partisan effort to dramatically reduce abortion rates" and what that would look like. While I would favor a constitutional amendment prohibiting most abortions (which most Dems would never support), I also certainly would support a serious attempt to dramatically reduce abortion rates. What might that look like? What would it take to make it happen?

Posted by: RememberThePoor | January 25, 2008 5:44 PM

While I would favor a constitutional amendment prohibiting most abortions (which most Dems would never support), I also certainly would support a serious attempt to dramatically reduce abortion rates.

I'm actually working on an op-ed for my newspaper on that very subject. I argue, however, that domestic play a role in that women/girls who get pregnant often aren't "fathered" properly, so my first order of business would be to raise the economic standing of families so that Dad can raise his children properly and thus keep them out of the sack. (No one -- wife, children or anyone else -- respects men who don't have good jobs.) Then, younger men who aren't working won't have the time to vamp on those little girls.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 25, 2008 5:58 PM

"We have convinced ourselves that we are pursuing power for the right ends. Heck, some of us may actually be pursuing justice. But let's not be so childish as to pretend that we aren't at some point pursuing influence, even if it is merely as a means to some more noble end." Wolverine

Gee, let's see you reconcile that profound statement with your neo-conservative stance on foreign policy.

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 25, 2008 6:26 PM

Anyone ever thrown out of a shopping mall for expressing political opinions (the economic sphere's version of a public square) would question whether economic power really is less totalitarian than political power.

The same is true of such alternative organising structures as corporate condominium and homeowner associations, as compared to politically regulated municipalities. The former financial constructs have much more unconstrained power in their spheres than do the latter political entities.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 25, 2008 10:34 PM

"While I would favor a constitutional amendment prohibiting most abortions (which most Dems would never support), I also certainly would support a serious attempt to dramatically reduce abortion rates. What might that look like? What would it take to make it happen?"

1) A change at the Supreme Court level, which would have the added benefit of extricating unmerited legislative power from nine unelected officials.

2) Bills forcing the Democrats hand on the issue. Contrary to assertions on this blog, legal abortion is EXTREMELY important for the political left. Legislation pairing benefits for new mothers, harsh penalties for absentee fathers, and restricted abortion rights will expose the pro-choice movement for what it is.

3) Christians to consistently take arms against legal abortion. Once the pro-choice movement is exposed as immoral and barbaric (not to mention unintelligable), it will be on us to introduce morality into the equation.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 26, 2008 2:01 AM

Posted by: carl copas | January 25, 2008 6:48 PM

"Wolverine: "Government is ultimately about the use of force, which makes political power more dangerous than economic power."

That is THE great dividing issue between Right and Left in this country."

Actually, I'm not sure it's that simple. The genius of our political system has emerged fully when government power and economic power have been able to counteract each other. When economic power acts unchecked, you have a gilded age, when the rich get richer and everybody else struggles. When political power acts unchecked, you get mercantilism at best and Soviet-style totalitarianism at worst. When economic and political power are in cahoots with each other, you get fascism, as symbolized by the incestuous relationship between the German government and I. G. Farben, the manufacturer of Zyklon B gas.

When, however, government plays its role of regulating the economy effectively, while still granting it substantial autonomy, you get the American economy at its best. Many people don't understand that Franklin Roosevelt sought to save capitalism, not destroy it. It is probably thanks to his leadership that capitalism, and perhaps even democracy, survived in this country in the aftermath of the great depression. When necessary, he was able to get American business to mobilize to meet the challenges of WWII, setting the basis for the period of unparalleled economic prosperity that followed.

This is why Franklin Roosevelt was the greatest president of the 20th century, despite being a man of considerably limited intellectual gifts compared to his cousin Theodore. It's also why we desperately need somebody with this kind of vision today.

Posted by: Another nonymous | January 26, 2008 11:26 AM

Jeff,
Thanks for clarifying your question. I wasn't actually addressing the truth of any of his comments. I do think both sides use God for financial gain. That said, I haven't thought enough about whether his specific accusations against Wallis are true or not--I don't think they are--not that I appreciate his plugs for his book, but is that truly using God for financial gain, or simply an honest effort at getting an important word out?

However, the point I was making was this: I have seen people like Jerry come on this site and drop all these accusatory bombs, decrying all the horrible things the Christian left does. In the meantime, they ignore the fact that every horrible sin they accuse the Christian left of committing has been committed by the Christian right. I don't know if that is because they truly don't see the problems in the Christian right, and so it is worth pointing out (to quote an old axiom I learned when I was five) that when we point fingers at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at ourselves.

Posted by: squeaky | January 26, 2008 1:58 PM

Squeaky--A less cynical view is that persons who propel movements, causes, organizations, businesses, inventions, and ideas often love those things and expend themselves in what appears to be an idolatrous way. They have a singularity of focus and are committed to destroy the Devil if they have to self-destruct to do so. My cynical hunch is the 'wedgers' are not the committed extremists but the political hacks.

The brunt of my anger is not at the extremists or those out to 'divide and conquer' the nation; but rather those with primary capacity and responsibility to frame and manage public dialogue and policy. CNN, Nancy Pelosi, George Bush, Fox News, and the New York Times could shift the whole discourse tomorrow (by their little old selves)--if they wanted to.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 26, 2008 9:08 PM

Everyone on the ground is not polarized. The polarization is in public discourse and politics

Rick--There was not a pro-segregation march from Montgomery to Selma in 1963 either. Didn't have to. That side was represented behind badges and sticks on horseback. I think you choose a weak argument if you are going to advocate the hard edge of the "choice" movement is less polarizing.

Do you consider the Pope to be the product of American conservatism?? I understand there has been much political activism on the back of the pro-life movement. That does not mean it is fundamentally a conservative movement.

I do agree on the disconnect between the pro-life movement and African-Americans; and that the disconnect profoundly weakens the movement and no sorrow could describe the loss of life.

And there was similar disconnect between women's movement and African American women; and the pro-choice movement and African American women.

I also understand the "radioactive" comment--but isn't it possible, from the African-American side of the equation, that issues of race simply pre-empt engagement on other issues; unless the 'other movements' actively address their own racism first.

And it seems to me there was such a shift in civil rights advocacy from a high-ground, universal, moral appeal at the time of Dr. King (which had the capacity to engage other issues) to a low-ground "it's not fair--I'm offended--give me my rights" argument that becomes the rallying cry for anybody with a grievance. The failure of White Evangelicals to hear the voice of our Black brothers and sisters crippled the entire church.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 27, 2008 10:24 AM

There was not a pro-segregation march from Montgomery to Selma in 1963 either. Didn't have to. That side was represented behind badges and sticks on horseback. I think you choose a weak argument if you are going to advocate the hard edge of the "choice" movement is less polarizing.

I seriously doubt, however, that the "March for Life" experiences some serious organized heckling from pro-choice demonstrators, whom news reports don't even note if there are any -- if there were the marchers would make a big deal about them.

Do you consider the Pope to be the product of American conservatism?? I understand there has been much political activism on the back of the pro-life movement. That does not mean it is fundamentally a conservative movement.

In this country, however, it is. Remember that Pope John Paul II urged President Bush not to go into Iraq as did, if I remember correctly, American Catholic bishops.

...but isn't it possible, from the African-American side of the equation, that issues of race simply pre-empt engagement on other issues; unless the 'other movements' actively address their own racism first.

It certainly is. But since Southern conservatives who had no interest in addressing the racial problem in the first place migrated to the Republican Party and hooked up with the anti-Red Cold Warriors, modern conservatism is seen in the black community as the issue that needs to be fought, even more so at times than race in itself. Remember, King was often referred to as a Communist.

Rick, I think what you are saying, at least partially (you'll correct me if I am wrong), is that instead of pointing fingers at the other side as being the ones responsible for the chasm, we need to look inward and see what we are doing on our own side to perpetuate it.

That is just what I did when it came to race. You see, I used to accuse whites of being racist just by virtue of their being white, but I learned when I was 11 or 12 that I had no right to make those kind of judgments unless they actually said or did anything to prove it.

It is also why I have refused to get involved with "pro-life" activities, even though I oppose abortion with every fiber of my soul -- people become so consumed with the issue that they forget that it's their character that make the difference, not necessarily their arguments. That's why King is recognized today as who he is and other Christian and political leaders trying to make names for themselves will fade into oblivion or have already done so.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 27, 2008 2:57 PM