“We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.”
Yes.
The impact of moral symbols
In India, people are exchanging zero-rupee notes to challenge the culture of bribery. Poor people who don’t have power, or money, offer them to officials looking for rewards.
It’s a challenge, and one that is remarkably creative in our paper exchange system. It puts people on notice.
The zero-rupee note is effective because it uses the language of money to halt, interrogate, and challenge unjust exchanges.
Religious symbols can sometimes take such roles, but if they aren’t comprehensible, they won’t work.
Atheists and Public Office
Rob Boston reports the story of a North Carolina councilman, Cecil Bothwell, who some local politicians would like to remove. He’s an atheist. There is also a legal reason to do so. Being an atheist, and a public servant, is against the law.
This law should also be offensive to believers.
I understand the argument: there is a generally held belief about believers that atheism cannot provide a general account of the common good. I don’t think it is a bad argument, but it is empirically wrong, if deductively plausible. Religious people should be wary of such requirements for the simple reason is that it makes politicians hypocrites and liars.
Most politicians are opportunistic in their belief. There are plenty of ultra right wing conservative Christian politicians who have no faith, but find it useful to proclaim it. Announcing one’s faith says “I’m on your team.” S/he may say they don’t believe in evolution but insist on requiring their own kids take science classes. They still want their children to go to a secular, private, ivy schools.
Religious requirements make politicians liars.
Religious affiliation is, after all, a low cost marker. It doesn’t require commitment; it doesn’t require sacrifice. Just parrot the right things, and the credulous will believe you.
So when an atheist runs for office we should commend them for their honesty, and evaluate them on their politics.
And that’s actually the real issue.
The issue is not, in my view, about his beliefs. If he had been an atheist who believed in conservative politics, would there have been such an outrage? Chances are he would have been a bit quieter, perhaps, but I doubt politicians would be aggressively challenging him. What has happened, alas, is that non-belief becomes an identifier for progressive politics. It need not be that way, of course. There are lots of libertarians and conservatives who have no truck with religious institutions, traditions or thought.
The mistake that we make is to assume that this issue is primarily about belief. It is more about how progressive politics will get framed, challenging the standard narratives of political discourse. If this creates more honesty, then we should welcome it. But it’s not first about religion; its about politics. We need more truthfulness in institutions, and should commend those who can speak about their religious allegiances, or non-allegiances, without fear of judgment.
Slacktivist on Health Care
Fred explains why we’re not getting raises and knocks down a couple sacred cows.
15. Do you see the point here? You are angrily, loudly demanding that Congress make sure that you never, ever get another pay raise as long as you live. Because of you and because of your angry demands, you and your family and your kids are going to have to get by with less this year than last year. And next year you’re going to have to get by with even less. And if you keep angrily demanding that no one must ever fix this problem, then you’re going to have to figure out how to get by on less and less every year for the rest of your life.
About the Massachusetts Election
1. Scott Brown has a compelling narrative. He is presidential material – he’s telegenic, smart, socially moderate, financially conservative. He’s strong on defense, and unlike many Republicans, he’s actually served. In some ways, he is like Obama – very himself, confident and clear. Furthermore, unlike many conservatives, doesn’t have the personal animosity towards Obama being fostered by plenty in the wingnut branch of the party. That suits him.
2. This MAY presage bad news for the Democrats. Yes, perhaps they were not responsible for the economic fiasco. But they were not able to provide a narrative about how we got here, in part because they, also, were complicit. They were still at the bank’s bidding. When the union party sells out the unions, a union man might just decide to vote Republican.
3. Obama has generally been reticent about playing the economic populist. He’s not an economic populist. He’s a centrist, a libertarian of the behavioralist school. In spite of the ridiculous assertions that he’s a closet Marxist, he actually believes that banks have a proper function in the economy. This means the Republicans, being the alternative party, are getting to play that role.
4. People don’t get Keynes. The stimulus may have prevented jobs from being lost, but people don’t quite understand that. They buy the easy (and possibly false) idea, that the deficit means something. People are aware that they are not getting much for their taxes. They don’t seem to understand that our taxes are helping our military, the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the Israelis, and the Pakistanis. Good causes, to be sure, but its expensive to help millions of people in the rest of the world, and our own military and not get a much else in return, especially when we can’t seem to police our own borders as well as we should (unionized, skilled TSA workers might help).
5. Scott Brown is more liberal than some southern Democrats. He’s unformed by focus groups, and may actually be an independent.
6. The national health care plan is basically Massachusetts but for the entire country.
7. Perhaps Obama will be forced to form a bipartisan committee with Republicans and challenge them when they oppose a minimum plan.
8. Obama should challenge those companies, including pharmaceutical companies, who oppose legitimate free-market principles. A national health exchange and allowing imports from Canada are popular, and legit to libertarians.
9. Obama mainly wants people to be kept on task. the task is to reform the system. He can still be an effective leader, but you start with the possible to get to the impossible.
A year after the inauguration
From 2009
Like the two million people who went to the inauguration, I’m captivated by the change in administration.
Although my personal politics are *ahem* non-partisan, or “Red Tory,” I think that Obama has demonstrated – even apart from his political slant – sophisticated and agile leadership. The most important evidence is his ability to stay connected to people who think differently. He is motivated by curiosity and a sense that everyone has a view worth sharing.
I share some interests with our President. I moved to Chicago in 1992 for because Chicago was where community organizing was part of the Divinity School curriculum. The city’s physical landscape was organized around neighborhoods. In 1982 it elected Harold Washington, who some think was one of the truly great politicians of all time – a man who combined realism with idealism in a way that transformed Chicago. At the time, I was fascinated by the city more than New York.
The university itself was also the center of rigorous conservative thought. It avoided an instinctive leftish position but was rigorous and fair, generally unimpressed by identity politics. Obama’s teaching at Chicago was a time when he would have been connected to both social action, politics, and conservative thought that would help ground his ability to look at the world in complicated ways. I think this is a worthy gift – being able to see the world through many different lenses.
He inherits a challenge. Yet, our role is not to assent without understanding, to idealize without reflecting, or to worship. We must still organize ourselves as witnesses to love in the world, speak truth to power, and hold up a mirror to our leaders, holding them accountable for their actions. We can do so by remaining magnanimous and remembering the cardinal rule of organizing: there are no permanent enemies. Which is another way of saying, “love your neighbor.”
Pastors Spell Things Out for Nelson
As Nebraska faith leaders, we call for systemic change that is guided by the following principles based on our religious values. We support universal access to good-quality health care that: (1) Provides comprehensive and affordable coverage for all. (2) Eliminates health care disparities. (3) Includes effective cost containment. (4) Simplifies administration. (5) Eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions from coverage.
We turn to U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, knowing he stands with us as a person of faith. As governor, he left a lasting and important legacy of strong public insurance programs such as Kids Connection and CHIP, which provides insurance to thousands of Nebraskans who would otherwise join the uninsured.
Now we turn to him again to leave another legacy: health care for all Nebraskans. If we can fix the broken health care system, we can ensure that Nelson’s legacy in Nebraska is continued with his vote this year to pass health reform.
Pro-life people should support the bill because greater health care will mean more women freely choosing to have children with or without an abortion amendment.
On Rick Warren and Uganda
Filed under Late than Never. Warren condemns the Ugandan Law.
There is a good reason people are confused: Warren is speaking to two audiences. First, his own. The homophobes. If he gets too liberal he loses credibility.
Second, non-homophobes who don’t trust him. He wants them to know he’s not an idiot.
Warren is a little different than other evangelicals: gay people are a second or third order issue. For most of the Christian right, homosexual fervor is a way of raising money. For him, his view of homosexuality is a code for “I still have moral authority.”
His own feelings are probably a bit conflicted. He’s committed to the traditional idea of marriage, yes, but he’s honestly not interested in killing gays. He has enough of a conscience to be offended by a law that executes gay people. If he were to change his mind, he’d probably lose 90% of his people. I’d be happy if he just gets them to be distracted by other issues where we can agree on, like climate change or female genital mutilation.
Could he be the person who opens up some space for safety among gays in Uganda? Warren is like a rock star there. His books are second only to the bible. He could pull it off. And I’d be happy if your average Ugandan gay could just not be killed. They listen to him because he’s an effective moral authority for them. Still, it comes at the expense of his desire to have authority here in the US as well.
Maddow, however, does expose Warren’s attempts to have it both ways. Still, the media might not let him. Remember – most of the media doesn’t understand religion as language: they see it as a series of intellectual propositions that have to calculate.
Father Jake discusses: The Ugandan Trade: Death Penalty for Conversion Clause
Deal!
The public option has changed. Broaden Medicare and Medicaid. Keep cost-cutting devices. Personally, I think it is a smart move. Medicare and Medicaid are public options. Eventually, a single payer system, if possible, will arise from expanding institutions already in place. Politically, these changes happen in steps, and there is plenty of good in other parts of the bill.
Still, they should break the trusts and allow a little more free enterprise.
A few facts and numbers for ya! A few more.
Update: The Washington Post decries this idea, saying “The irony of this late-breaking Medicare proposal is that it could be a bigger step toward a single-payer system than the milquetoast public option plans rejected by Senate moderates as too disruptive of the private market.”
Baghdad Bombings
Ugh.
Adm Mullen says it’s going to get worse.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
The Divine Latitude 