Progressive Revival

On Tuesday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak authorized the building of 300 new homes in the West Bank settlement of Talmon.

No clearer statement could be made of Prime Minister Netanyahu's intent to fight President Obama's settlement policy. Netanyahu, in an effort to detract from the conversation, even went so far as to say: "I think that the more we spend time arguing about this, the more we waste time instead of moving towards peace." In his talks with Secretary of State Clinton, Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman said bluntly: "We cannot accept this vision absolutely, completely freezing these settlements. I think we must keep natural growth."

It is time to Christianize the health care debate.  Ok, before the radical atheists come at me with their blazing keyboards let me explain the reference.  A hundred years ago  my great grandfather Walter Rauschenbusch wrote a book called Christianizing the Social Order which called for a society that reflected the economic and social justice preached by Jesus in the Gospel with a special emphasis on the needs and concerns of the working poor being crushed by the industrial revolution.    

When I say Christianize the health care system I mean that we should change the vantage point from where we hold this debate.  Whether talking about a single payer plan, or an additional national government plan the loudest objections are coming from those who have excellent health care such as members of congress, lobbying groups, and the wealthy.     The impetus for our need to correct our health care system is not that it is failing the rich - it is that it is failing the poor, the fifty million or so  Americans who have no or little health care and for whom getting sick requires deciding whether or not to risk bankruptcy to get healthy.  Christianizing the health care debate would give the concerns of poorest of our society equal weight to the concerns of the wealthy.   

In the past few decades Christians have too often thrown their lot in with free market Darwinism emphasizing personal free will over collective responsibility.  This has led to the ridiculous prosperity preachers and dangerous missionary mercenaries.    But if we look back a bit further we can see the important role that Christians had in the civil rights movement, the Great Society and the New Deal.  Christianizing the health care debate means applying the inspiring power of religion to promote self sacrifice and compassion in one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Christians should join with people of compassion from all religious traditions including secular ones and put pressure on our elected officials to serve the needs of those whom Jesus loved best and who are the most vulnerable of our society.

Alec Baldwin wants me to move on and not pay attention to the Mark Sanford fandango.  I basically agree.  But over the last couple of days I have been wondering why the Mark Sanford affair rankles me more than, say, the Elliot Spitzer affair.  And it is, of course, because of Sanford's hypocracy. 

Mark Sanford has made a career of moralizing against other people.  The (until soon) Governor voted to impeach then President Bill Clinton for his moral illegitimacy and claims that marriage among gays and lesbians undermines the institution.  On the other hand, Elliot Spitzer never threw stones against other adulterers knowing full well that the shards of glass of his own house might cut him.  He also was a staunch supporter of gay marriage, perhaps because he was inspired by the determination of the gay community to be married in the face of all obstacles, when he could and did take his marriage for granted.

It is the bald hypocrisy of Sanford that makes me gloat over his downfall.  But it begs the question of the font of his hypocrisy.  Unfortunately, I think it may be faith.  Sanford is constantly described as a man of deep faith.  Instead of his faith giving him insight into the deep fallible nature of humans and fueling his compassion for others; his faith has been used as a moralizing bludgeon for attack and condemnation. 

Now that it is his turn in the shame spotlight he will assuredly use his faith to promote a repentance and forgiveness scheme for himself like the Ted Haggards.  But the damage he has done and his systematic judgment of others he used as the faithful ladder of his career has lost its power to elevate. 

All that Sanford and the other hypocrites like him can hope for is that God will break them of their arrogance and make them new as people of compassion and acceptance.  

Two questions worth asking: What if the Green Revolution fails? And what if it succeeds?

If it fails, I argue that we still have to engage Iran, just like we continued to engage China after Tiananmen Square. Doing otherwise will guarantee more totalitarianism, not less - is there any evidence that sanctions and diplomatic isolation have ever had a positive effect on an autocratic regime?

It it succeeds, I argue that it's not going to be quite the nirvana that some imagine. Iran will still desire nuclear weapons (with good reason, IMHO). It still won't exactly be friendly to Israel, since both countries aree seeking regional hegemony in the same sphere (think China and the former USSR - never best of friends even with ostensibly identical government systems, unlike the two I's). And frankly the election of Moussavi still doesn't solve the constitutional obstacles to genuine reform and freedom in the Iranian society.

Fundamentally, Iran will be an Islamic Republic no matter the outcome. The question is, just how diverse is the space of possible Islamic Republics with respect to a free society? Reihan Salaam has a speculative piece about the best possible outcome, but the actual Iran v3.0 that ultimately emerges will depend a lot upon how we the United States engage Iran moving forward.