The Power of Change (by Jim Wallis)
Sometimes, politics becomes so broken that the hunger for change becomes overwhelming. That's what is happening this year. And it's not just about one or two candidates now. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee changed the political narrative with dramatic wins in Iowa, making the call for a change in politics into the 2008 paradigm. John Edwards has been a fundamental "change candidate" since the beginning of his campaign. And since Iowa, even political veterans like Hillary Clinton and John McCain, who both won last night in New Hampshire, did so by also claiming the mantle of change - with her saying that she has the experience to actually make change and not just "hope" for it, and with him saying that he has always been a thorn in the side of official Washington. Mitt Romney, who lost again in New Hampshire, started calling himself a change candidate, and Rudy Giuliani has been quick to make a claim to being a Washington outsider.
But while the candidates will now battle to convince voters that each has the vision and the capacity to really bring change; it is absolutely clear that change has already won this election. The voters have spoken and they want a new direction. Seventy percent of the country has consistently said they believe America is moving in the wrong direction, ninety-two percent of Democrats feel that way, and fifty-three percent of Republicans agree.
But as people of faith, we know that the change must go deeper than politics. In fact, unless change goes deeper, politics won't really change. And 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 is a real movement 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. And, to be really honest, there are too many bad habits, negative choices, and cynical resignations in us as people that also serve as an obstacle to change. That's why I believe that it will take a new spiritual revival to finally make serious social change really possible. Changing hearts and minds and forging a constituency who will demand nothing less than a new direction. Remember, President Lyndon Johnson didn't become a civil rights leader until Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks made him one. And that's what we need again now.
In his speech last night in New Hampshire, Barack Obama said, "Change is what's happening in America." The crowd chanted back, "We want change!" over and over. At the Clinton headquarters, enthusiastic supporters waved signs which read "Ready for Change." John Edwards, who finished third last night, called on U.S. citizens to take back their country from those who have stolen democracy. And the Republican winner, John McCain, spoke of restoring the U.S.'s honor again.
Bless all their hearts. But political leaders in Washington have changed the U.S. less often than social movements have. The U.S. is signaling it is hungry for change again, and we will need to build the kind of spiritual and social movement that can deliver on that hope. Last night, Barack Obama said, "it's also about what you, the people who love this country, can do to change it." And he's right; it is really all about us.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I love Obama's catch phrase "Change You Can Believe In". Edwards and Hillary are new to this "change" thing.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 9, 2008 10:19 AM
Sorry, but it's rare for a Presidential candidate other than an incumbent not to make change a theme of his or her campaign. Even George Bush the Elder -- succeeding the very popular Ronald Reagan and running at a time of relative prosperity and without a divisive war -- felt the need to hint at some sort of change. (Remember "A Kinder, Gentler America"?)
That having been said, Jim is undeniably right that politics is unlikely to change without broader social changes.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 9, 2008 11:17 AM
I'm actually completely tired of the candidates trying to say the word "change" as many times as they can in a minute. Whether it was the first "change" candidates of Obama and Huck or the new "change" candidates Romney or Clinton. When everyone says "change" it starts to mean absolutely nothing. None of the frontrunners really represent anything new, they're just recognizing the obvious - that the average American is tired of the Bush Administration.
What needs to change is our culture, not politicians or Washington. Washington and politicians don't shape our culture, they are of it and follow it. Whether it's Sojourners on the left or the Christian Coalition on the right, they put far too much effort into changing Washington and not enough into changing the culture around us.
Posted by: Eric | January 9, 2008 11:25 AM
Wolverine & Eric,
Do I detect a hint of cynicism?
Yeah, me too.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 9, 2008 12:48 PM
Jesus said it first, for us, didn't He? The first recorded words of the Gospels to come out of His mouth, were to "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near (at hand). . .". 'Repent' essentially means to "change your path," to make the necessary changes in our own life, and do it because God's reign is closer now then when you first became aware of it."
I still contend, however, that the use of the word "change" becomes only a mantra, unless it is followed by giving specific examples of what we are going to change from, and what we are going to change to. Jesus did this. Most of Matthew 5 and 6 is a good representation of His giving examples of the 'repentance' - - the change, that He wants to see. But He wants to see it in US, as individuals! The government gets no commands from Jesus, that I am able to find.
"Repent - - change - - for the Kingdom is close!!" Brother Jim Wallis is right, we need a social revival, but I think it must be within the Church, it is not about the government. If 'church people' work for the government, and carry the repentance into their workplace, then change will come. But we will never force change, repentance, within the halls of Washington. It can be done one person at a time. It cannot be done by departments.
Having said all that. . . thank you, Mr. Wallis, for making me think and pray!!
Posted by: joekc | January 9, 2008 2:06 PM
It's Wednesday, and in obedience to Matthew 5:43-48, prayers were offered for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Ann Coulter.
Posted by: carl copas | January 9, 2008 2:21 PM
When everyone says "change" it starts to mean absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Eric
Well I guess your right Eric . I was falling for it though . Your right , the culture needs to change first . Maybe that is why the word is used so much , because so many of us want us to change for the better , we bond with the person who is talking about it .
Went to see Jersey Boys the other night in the big city , my wifes Christmas present to me . Now that was a change for me , and it was great !
Posted by: Mick | January 9, 2008 2:44 PM
Sorry, yes, neuro...my cynicism was coming out. :)
Carl prays for Ann Coulter?
Posted by: Eric | January 9, 2008 2:45 PM
Carl,
"It's Wednesday, and in obedience to Matthew 5:43-48, prayers were offered for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Ann Coulter."
This is your second attempt at humor at the expense of Moderatelad. Some might find it funny, but it's coming across as petty and mean.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 9, 2008 2:57 PM
One more time - for the record.
I will not comment in the future about what, when or how I prayed for any issue on this site.
Yes - I pray directly and to the point. I come before the Almighty with defined requests and desires. I also know that He will answer my requests the way He wants to do so.
I believe that the prayers of the faithful can and do change the Heart of God.
Will not comment any further so I do not put others through this needless chat by some who believe that they have the right to determine who's prayers God will hear and those He will not.
Let's move on and leave it behind with those who need the control.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 3:23 PM
Cosmetic change: platitudes, dynamic speaking style, new ways to bring religious talk into capaign speeches, skin color, gender.
Real change: single-payer health care, instant runoff voting, national CAFE standards that mean something, a truly different direction for America in the world, serious investment in education
Posted by: I and I | January 9, 2008 3:26 PM
Sheesh for crying out loud. I think I'm taking a break from this site for an indefinite period of time. It's been fun chatting with you all.
Cheers and blessings
Posted by: squeaky | January 9, 2008 3:59 PM
“Sorry, yes, neuro...my cynicism was coming out. :)
Carl prays for Ann Coulter?”
Maybe cynicism isn’t the right word – futility?
I think Carl was sincere in praying for Ann Coulter. A couple of months ago I heard of a group of Christians praying for Brittany Spears. The thought repulsed me, but I realized they were right.
On the subject of changing our culture, who but those in the public eye can do more damage? Spears, Coulter, Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton – morally challenged women who behave badly in public, only some of whom have suffered the consequences of their behavior (so far) – our culture glorifies these women.
As nauseating as it seems, these people do deserve our prayers – if not for their benefit, for our own and the benefit of our children.
“Sheesh for crying out loud. I think I'm taking a break from this site for an indefinite period of time. It's been fun chatting with you all.”
Speaking from personal experience, it’s good to get away for a while. We’ll miss you.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 9, 2008 4:51 PM
Hi,
I'm new to this website and I would be interested in hearing your opinions on how tough it seems for today's moderate Christians when it comes to selecting a candidate who supports those issues close to one's heart. Thx
Posted by: American37 | January 9, 2008 5:04 PM
The one thing that doesn't change is the political landscape of change. If we weren't interested in change, would we be voting? If we weren't interested in change, wouldn't we have decided to allow a President unlimited terms? If we weren't interested in change, would we even have elections? Give me a break. If you're a political candidate, of course you're about change. If you're a political candidate, you're about hope. And if you're a political candidate, you better start talking reality instead of giving voters their word of the day from the feel-good buffet.
Posted by: Cymria | January 9, 2008 5:30 PM
Me, I'd like to see some 'change' back in the direction of obedience to the Constitution and the rule of law. Those mean everything to me in the light of my youth in the Civil Rights movement and my young manhood in the Anti-Vietnam-War movement.
None of the top corporate-media-anointed candidates permitted us will make any serious movement toward the restoration of the Republic.
What we have now is an 'Augustan' or 'dead' Republic, 'having the form of a republic, but lacking the substance thereof.'
Fascism such as we now enjoy, which no less than Mussolini defined as 'a corporate state', in which the corporations rule hand-in-glove through their totally-owned-subsidiary government, is just so much more convenient for the immoral, immortal corporations than dealing with the popular will, and our popular will is so lulled and anesthetized by, not 'bread and crcuses', but 'cheap gas and ESPN.' Our frog is pretty well boiled.
Hillary wouldn't mind, Barack doesn't impress me as very effective... and my man Dennis is being frozen out. (There's a prophet! No one ever listens to prophets.)
I am so disappointed that no Christian leader- Jim- has spoken to this. Some of our Christian 'leadership' has in past, worked like termites to overthrow the Republic, particularly to the point of nearly (re)establishing the noisiest and most strident segment of the church. And now- Jim- some Christian leaders are trying to teach Democrats to parrot the faith talk. Just what we need, Jim; religious hypocrisy by Democrats!
Remember the Constitutional separation, Jim: it works on behalf of the Church as well as on behalf of the State.
All due respect, Jim; but no one is ever going to be very impressed by the 'Christian'- better, 'religious' profession of a religious liberal; there's so obviously no spiritual 'there' there: 'a form of Godliness, lacking the power thereof.'
[Full disclosure: I grew up as a born-again Christian in the Congregational-later-UCC denomination, now Barack's. I thought I was the last Christian. Being studious by nature, I read the Book, including the LORD's constitution for Israel, the Law of Moses, so I'm politically liberal, but 'Christianly' orthodox.]
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | January 9, 2008 5:38 PM
It's Wednesday, and in obedience to Matthew 5:43-48, prayers were offered for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Ann Coulter.Posted by: carl copas
You forgot to mention praying for whatever despotic third world dictator meets our needs at the present time! Shame on you!
"This is your second attempt at humor at the expense of Moderatelad. Some might find it funny, but it's coming across as petty and mean." Jeff
Petty? Could be. Mean? Maybe Appropriate- definitely
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 9, 2008 6:37 PM
Since God is omniscient, he hears all prayers.
Obviously, the replies often don't match the requests.
We need to surrender to the Holy Spirit so that what we pray for is in submission to His will.
I will note that mixing up American politics with religious fervor might not always mean being one with the spirit - we are famously founded on rebellion not submission and are notably prideful, which isn't necessarily conducive to being teachable or humble.
Other nations' populations have their own emphases, of course, drawn from the same basic human personality that has become deeply flawed - but is capable of redemption.
I will join prayers that the hearts of all men and women will be softened towards one another so that they will neither manipulate others nor be manipulated into killing one another and work towards peaceful resolution of differences with a zeal equal to what we have given towards war and conquest. In this way prayers for safety of troops can finally be fulfilled.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 9, 2008 6:46 PM
In obedience to Matthew 5:23-24, I apologize if I have offended anyone on this blog site.
God was over-generous perhaps when he shaped my satire and sarcasm faculties.
Posted by: carl copas | January 9, 2008 7:49 PM
God was over-generous perhaps when he shaped my satire and sarcasm faculties.
Posted by: carl copas
What makes you think it was God . ;0)
Posted by: Mick | January 9, 2008 8:32 PM
Canuckle,
First, Jesus did not say our prayers should be always kept in the closet.
I never claimed to determine another posters motivation. I just said it didn't come off well. I enjoy (though seldom agree) with Carl's posts. I simply stated how his comments struck my hear. It is you that is claiming to know my motivation, and that after me clearly stating earlier what that motivation was. Straw man? that doesn't make any sense at all.
I can recall one occasion when I crossed a line and Rick N. called me on it. I appreciated the correction, apologized, it was received and we moved on.
Carl, thanks for the kind words.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 9, 2008 9:47 PM
I'm new to this site so take this as an outsider observation. I was drawn to the article (remember the article above??) because it spoke of change and a chance to engage with each other and society differently. Imagine my surprise when I see petty bickering, squabbling and so forth listed ad nauseum in the comments section. I would appear that one can certainly talk the talk yet the walking part is a little more tricky. Then again let he without guilt cast the first stone, and I am by no means a perfect individual. Maybe we could have a little peace building however as opposed to the same old petty squabbles....it would be a nice change.
Posted by: Ender | January 9, 2008 10:10 PM
"Imagine my surprise when I see petty bickering, squabbling and so forth listed ad nauseum in the comments section." Ender
When I was a kid my family had a cat and a dog that fought with each other at every turn. That dog would run off and get picked up by the pound and would be gone a couple of days before my parents would go pick him up. That old cat would cry until he came back.
These guys would give each other the shirts off their backs.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 9, 2008 10:41 PM
I'm with you Ender...
To quote a famous verse:
"Love, Love, Love.....All you need is love...barnananana"
:)
Posted by: Ben | January 10, 2008 3:04 AM
I'm with you Ender. Once again the discussion got hijacked by those who seek attention for themselves. I'm tempted to follow Squeaky out the door.
Moderator, would you please remove the messages on here that have nothing to do with the topic and do so in the future so that we can have a clean thread?
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 9:36 AM
I'm with you Ender. Once again the discussion got hijacked by those who seek attention for themselves. I'm tempted to follow Squeaky out the door.
Moderator, would you please remove the messages on here that have nothing to do with the topic and do so in the future so that we can have a clean thread?
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 9:38 AM
They ONLY different kind of candidate/politician is Mike Huckabee. Other than skin tone, Obama is as typical a Democrat as it gets. Huckabee is supposedly a conservative Republican, but his record shows he "changed" somewhere down the line to be very different than that. It's too bad that so many Democrat-voters have accepted the anti-Christian indoctrination they were put through in school. (And SOJO? A rose by any other name is still a Marxist.)
Posted by: Donny | January 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Earlier in the Comment Section a person new to the blog expressed interest in dialogue:
"I'm new to this website and I would be interested in hearing your opinions on how tough it seems for today's moderate Christians when it comes to selecting a candidate who supports those issues close to one's heart."
Other conversation went on--without pause.
A few weeks ago the moderator posted to explain their attempts to create better dialogue in response to complaints.
Above, Ender, another new person on blog expresses his surprise at the nature of much of the 'conversation.'
Neuro-Nurse--You, among others have attempted to contribute to substantive, fair, and kind conversation. I appreciate your "Dog-Cat" analogy and expect there to be much truth to that. However the same can be said for many very abusive and violent marriages.
Squeaky is another contributor who has attempted to write words that contribute substance and a constructive style.
In love, some of us need to listen. I am not saying some of us need to put our tail between our legs and run away. I am saying we need to open our hearts and minds to consider whether we need to alter the words we write.
I am glad some who engage in 'cat-dog' fights love each other. Why not translate that into respectful language that furthers dialogue?? It might actually give you more of what you desire!!
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 10, 2008 9:58 AM
i believe that many canidates that desire to 'serve' in DC would like to make changes that could effect our country in a positive manner. My experience is that the career gov't worker in DC is the biggest stumbling block to change. Those workers can stall - subvert - derail any change that congress or the oval office desires if it will adverely effect their employment.
Good luck to the next group of politicians.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 10, 2008 10:39 AM
This is my first time sending a comment on this site. From what I've read it sounds like an insider's club, but I will submit my thoughts anyway as I have been a follower of Jim Wallis since the last presidential election.
While change is the agent that will get things done, I believe that what we are all trying to say is that we want our voices to be heard, now and in the future. Most candidates are quick to say that they are "listening to the people". If they are, it is only to serve their higher purpose of getting elected; true manipulation of the American public. I want my voice to be heard not just during the election process, but once they take office.
We, the people of the United States want our voices to be heard. We say that neither political affiliation, nor race, nor gender, nor religion will keep us from being a great nation. We are tired of partisan bickering, hidden agendas and a lack of accountability. We want to re-establish a government of the people, by the people and for the people. There must be a conscience effort to bring the people to the government and the government to the people.
I have sent the candidates emails and voice messages to their offices about a concept I have to keep citizens connected to the government and visa versa, but alas, to no avail. If anyone knows how I can get an audience with any of the candidates to share my idea, I would greatly appreciate it. It could be the way to begin the "repentance" process.
Posted by: Pat | January 10, 2008 10:57 AM
"My experience is that the career gov't worker in DC is the biggest stumbling block to change."
Reality check: the career govt' worker is often the only one who actually knows what he/she is doing. The career gov't worker, who knows the actual facts of how things work, sometimes has to tell the elected leader the truth. In the case of our current executive, if that elected politician doesn't want to hear that truth, he discredits the messenger. We've seen this at the Pentagon (troop numbers), Dept. of Treasury (the cost of the Bush tax cuts), the CDC (AIDS and sex education), the EPA (climate change), and the Deaprtment of Health and Human Services (the cost of the Republican Medicare drug prescription bill) for starters.
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 11:00 AM
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 11:00 AM
'...Reality check:...'
Cute -
I made an observation based on what I learned from several sources. Now it has been made into the issue that the 'Republicans' fault - WOW.
I was keeping a wider view of things and for your information - one of my sources was a paid aid to former MN Senator Paul Wellstone. Even though I disagreed with Wellstone on several issues - there were a few that I agreed with him on.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 10, 2008 11:10 AM
Republicans' fault? No, the reality check holds true regardless of who the elected leader is. But I suspect if McCain had been elected in 2000 he would have paid more attention to the experts. Same with Dole in 1996.
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 12:16 PM
I and I , I am a state employee , I really believe the reality check is beyond political
idealogies .
You very well know there is a spend or loose it mentality in government spending that is exactly the opposite mentality of anyone who is running say a household .
Different prriorities of those in charge . Education for example , if it fails the government responce is more money . Education may need more money I and I , but when I hear the word change , I tend to hope just throwing money at a problem without accountability is one of things that will change .
Posted by: Mick | January 10, 2008 12:25 PM
Posted by: Mick | January 10, 2008 12:25 PM
Well stated!
As one who works in Education - I see the 'spend or loose' everyday.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 10, 2008 12:45 PM
Mick, I agree that employees of the various government departments are going to want to protect their own respective turfs, but that is why we have an appropriations process. We can't just categorically blame gov't bureaucrats for the problems; it is the legislative branch that holds the purse strings. In a well functioning democracy, there is some healthy tension between the legislative and executive branch even within the same party, and the checks and balances are provided by the give and take that comes when the legislature is doing its job correctly.
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 12:50 PM
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 12:50 PM
'...functioning democracy, there is some healthy tension between the legislative and executive branch even within the same party, and the checks and balances...'
This is true. But I was not talking about this - I am refering to the non-elected gov't employees. There unions are very influential. They have the ability of derail any change that our 'elected' officials try to impose.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelal | January 10, 2008 1:40 PM
That's exactly who I am talking about: the non-elected civil service folks who work in the various departments keeping the proverbial trains running on time. The technocrats who do their work regardless of which person or party is in power. They don't hold the purse strings, so it's useless to blame them for wasted money. The reason I brought up healthy tension between the branches is that often the appointments to head those departments are made by the executive branch and are sometimes political in nature, but ultimately the legislative branch has the power over how much to fund their departments.
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 2:56 PM
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 2:56 PM
'...technocrats who do their work regardless of...'
That is who I am talking about too. They can make sure that the train does not keep on schedule and by doing so manipulate the system - regardless of who is in power or the party.
That was my friend's biggest challenge.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 10, 2008 2:59 PM
Neither side of politics can transform America. The only hope for America is the gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16-17). The only way to transform our society from living in sin is to preach the law of God and the grace of God (Romans 7:7,14; 1 Timothy 1:8-11). We will never turn the tide of sin in the United States or the world without the gospel of forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22) and forgiveness only comes through Jesus' blood (Matthew 26:28; Ephesians 1:7).
So therefore, the power of change lies not in Washington or in any person but only in the grace of God as He saves people by the preaching of His Word (Matthew 28:19-20) and by His Spirit radically changing the entire person (Ephesians 2:1-10; Titus 2:11-14; 3:5-7).
Posted by: Roy | January 10, 2008 3:00 PM
Wow, Roy, you sound like an old-time fundamentalist from the days before the Moral Majority encouraged Christian political activism. I don't mean that to be pejorative. Abstention from political activity including voting was part of what the fundamentalist movement in the late 1800's was all about, because it saw politics as a worldly endeavor.
Should I assume from your post that you don't vote?
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 3:38 PM
No one seems to identify the fact that Jim is not really being objective--he's clearly in the Obama camp, and uses prooftexting (or proofspeeching from Obama) to convince readers to support Obama.
I'm African American, Christian (non-Right Wing) and tend to think rather independently.
Jim: please quit waiting for the Messiah candidate to endorse SJ's agenda. The work that ministers like you (and I) must do is to work toward a different catechism of the believing community,and that takes hard work.
It's sad that SJ spends most of its energy and resources on trying to convince politicians to say the right thing to soothe our itching Christian ears.
If we (Christians) believe that gospel can "change" the climate of Washington, then let's start at home.
Are we (the faithful, supposed conscience of the nation) just as consumed with power, money, prestige, and privilege and property as Jim and the SJ organization?
Do we also want to hang out with the political elite and the superstars like Bono?
Posted by: catchphrase | January 10, 2008 3:54 PM
catchphrase--I hope there are Christians attempting to flesh out Jesus' good news in Washington DC, Beverly Hills, South Central LA, and Peoria. Where one is at does not necessarily determine whether one's heart is given towards money, prestige or status. I am not saddened if Jim Wallis spent 100% of his time expressing Jesus on the White House lawn if that is where God called Him. Maybe that is not the work God has prepared in advance for you to do.
My point of agreement with you might be that I do think we see the world through the lens of where we stand. So for those in DC, they tend to see the world as an extension of DC
Posted by: letjusticeroldown | January 10, 2008 6:31 PM
Are we (the faithful, supposed conscience of the nation) just as consumed with power, money, prestige, and privilege and property as Jim and the SJ organization?
I honestly don't think Sojo is -- if it were it would have sold out to the right wing decades ago (it actually predates most of the "religious right"). The danger is that Jim Wallis is "hot" now, but he has to know that the spotlight won't be on him forever.
That said, he would be welcome at my interracial, multicultural evangelical church which does plenty of work in the community where it's located -- it's common for people to give testimonies about being delivered from drugs, gangs etc. We need to understand that he's been involved in that kind of work for over 30 years, and if anyone has the right to speak he does.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 10, 2008 10:00 PM
Said it before. Gonna say it again.but begin with 4 additional sentences as introduction. Right Now the US is actively engaged in War Crimes, bombing a town alleged to have Al Qaeda members. This is collective punishment and it is criminal and it is evil and it is terrorism. The Democratically controlled Congress including Barak and Clinton continue to fund this criminal war. In this article Jim Wallis sounds more like a cheerleader than a prophet.
Well I want change and I don't think change happens unless people demand it, fight for it and can tell the difference between justice and pretty words. The Clintons brought us GAT, NAFTA, extraordinary rendition, denied food and medical supplies to Iraq, and tried to sell a health care plan that left in place a system motivated to deny care. Their ideas have not been good for average or poor Americans. Under Clinton,
the rich continued to get richer and the poor poorer. Bill Clinton was far smarter economically and more ethical in managing government than Bush or Reagan, but far from the reform needed to prevent the current debacle of economic growth through the export of exploitation and government by bribery, war and torture.
The most reasonable hope for re-establishing a non-imperial constitutional republic with an army appropriate to our population like France or Britain, universal healthcare, and a policy of peacemaking, removing corporations from government, human rights, environmental sanity, fair trade and genuine support for political freedom and democratic process lies with candidates like Richardson, Kucinich, Edwards, and Ron Paul.
The idea that niceness (Obama's plan) or status quo government by corporate pandering( Clinton's plan) will dramatically change America's course is a West Wing TV fantasy-land lie. There will have to be a fight with corporate dominance and political corruption. America will have to stand up to the talk show hate mongers, oil barons, and corporate scam artists. I don't have much hope this change will happen until our lies catch up with us. The 2 party system and the swinging door between incumbency and lobbying is the biggest thing standing in the way of change. Obama, Clinton, Romney, McCain and Guliani are all deeply indebted to sponsors who oppose change and that reality is the pin that deflates all the hot air balloon talk about hope and change.
America is living in a run down house with a bad mortgage and a climbing fuel bill we can barely afford. Without real change it's only a matter of time before the repo man and the foreclosure agent are on the way.
Posted by: jonabark | January 10, 2008 10:56 PM
Since we have currently had about twenty members of the the White House Farm Teams (i.e. the AA Statehouse Govenors and AAA Washington Legislators) who are all agents of change (including Kucinich, Paul, Richardson and Edwards)-- I guess we can be assured they will continue to produce significant change regardless of which one becomes President.
I watched Tim Russert press Ron Paul a couple weeks ago regarding why he continues to obtain so many earmarks for his district. He explained it is because how Washington works.
I noticed John Kline (Representative from MN) refused to place earmarks this year and is getting raked over the coals by local officials who want the Federal $'s.
Each candidate that explains they can only change their behavior if they have more power is not an agent of change.
How many of us have reduced our consumption of Middle East oil? Systemic change requires change across the system. We all want it and will die to stop it. A-D-D-I-C-T-I-O-N
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 11, 2008 9:12 AM
Posted by: catchphrase | January 10, 2008 3:54 PM
'Are we (the faithful, supposed conscience of the nation) just as consumed with power, money, prestige, and privilege and property as Jim and the SJ organization?'
You are correct - everyone is to one degree or another. If everyone cancelled their Sojo Mag. Subscription tomorrow - watch Wallis and Co. go into action to protect their investment. This site praises (and they should) when Wallis has an event and they talk about the 'large group' that attended etc. But let someone else come together from the other side of the fence with multi-times the attendees. They are compared to Storm Troupers and are labeled as the bain of American Soceity.
'Do we also want to hang out with the political elite and the superstars like Bono?'
I believe the term is called 'Star-dusting'. The 'not so famous' hangin with the 'more famous'.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 11, 2008 10:19 AM
But let someone else come together from the other side of the fence with multi-times the attendees. They are compared to Storm Troupers and are labeled as the bain of American Soceity.
Two things:
1) Their actions and attitudes in many cases make very clear their intention -- to "roll over" and intimidate their opponents. Some of them would even tell you that to your face.
2) Beware of putting trust in numbers (and the Scripture says that, too). In the fall of 2006 ABC News Nightline ran a story about a ragtag band of religious "liberals" in Ohio juxtaposed against the well-oiled conservative machine run by Columbus "patriot pastor" Rod Parsley, who practically bragged about how many people his organization could turn out compared to the other side. Well, as elsewhere around the country, the conservatives were slammed there.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 11, 2008 1:00 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 11, 2008 1:00 PM
N/C
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 11, 2008 1:49 PM
Well said, I and I--Cosmetic change: platitudes, dynamic speaking style, new ways to bring religious talk into capaign speeches, skin color, gender.
Real change: single-payer health care, instant runoff voting, national CAFE standards that mean something, a truly different direction for America in the world, serious investment in education.
Comments, not indicating complete disagreement: Bush has improved the CAFE more than Clinton the First. We invest a lot in education; it's misspent because parents don't control the schools. Single payer health cre works in Canada largely because they are adjacent of the US. If we had a neighbor ~10 times our size nearby, it would probably work here.
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 12, 2008 6:24 AM
"Well, as elsewhere around the country, the conservatives were slammed there."
No, that's a misleading, if not outright wrong, statement.
I'm no genius at picking voting patterns, but actually it was REPUBLICANS who were slammed in 2006. Overall the congress became less liberal as conservative Democrats replaced a number of liberal Republicans(such as Lincoln Chaffee, RI). And Bob Casey, Jr. is a newly minted, pro-life Democrat, although less conservative than the Pennsylvania Republican he replaced.
The leadership became much more liberal, of course. But even Harry Reid is pro-life. Shame that nobody knows that.....
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 15, 2008 8:27 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?