New Look

Hopefully you've noticed that my blog has a new look. And name. And address. And maybe you're asking "what's up?" The simplest explanation is that I've come a long ways since I first started my blog, and it was high time that my blog changes along with me. I haven't written for a while. The start of this year was the last time I think. Well, that may change. I'm not going to make a guarantee I can't keep, but readers should expect quite a few more posts in the near future. I think it's time I got back into political commentary after quite a break. There's more material than ever out there, especially a president who provides a lot of amusement. Plus I've got plenty of time this semester at school. I'm also going to write a bit more personally, looking at things that I run across in my life, and hopefully chronicle a bit of my Marine Corps experience. That's all for this post, now you know "what's up"!

Inauguration 2009

[Note: this blog post is an assignment I had for a class recently. Basically we had to do a personal response to a podcasted episode of the public radio show This American Life and post it on a class blog/discussion board.]

This post is about the This American Life episode entitled “The Inauguration Show.” I guess I might as well start out by saying where I'm coming from in listening to this episode---the context is important to my response. I am and always have been a strong and relatively active conservative. In recent years, in fact, I've taken to identifying myself as “conservative first, Republican second.” As a result, this past election offered an unexciting choice to me on the presidential level---John McCain was the first choice of neither myself nor a lot of other Republicans. However, I supported him; and, more importantly, I was and remain firmly opposed to the platform and presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. Unfortunately, however, it is now a reality, so listening to this episode was an interesting opportunity to hear how some other groups look at the new president. The podcast basically takes a look at reactions to the election by interviewing members of various focus groups. The first of these was a group of environmental activists talking about their impressions of a speech that Obama gave in November after his election. The general impression that I got was that many of these individuals had been frustrated by what they saw as an apparent lack of willingness of Obama during the campaign to come out strongly in support of specific environmental policies. Now they were very excited by the message that he gave (in a video recorded speech) about specific environmental policy commitments. I was surprised, despite knowing I shouldn't be, at the response—it is one the proverbial things that “never ceases to amaze” me. Of course Obama was now being more specific. Once you're elected, you can "come out" about radical policies without fear of political consequences, especially when you're riding an immense wave of popular acclaim and adulation like Obama was (and is). What saddened me, more than even the false premise upon which Obama is basing his policy—the idea that the science of global warming is incontrovertible—was the overblown response of this group to a speech that obviously designed to pander to their interests. Quotes like “suddenly the world was a place where countries could come together again,” and “everybody was so enthusiastic that they couldn't help themselves,” tell me that this particular group was not engaging in a whole lot of serious thought or analysis about the then president-elect. By itself, this would probably be understandable. After all, it is natural to get excited when the president you just elected is “your guy” and promising the stars when it comes to your agenda. However, this response was only indicative to me of the widespread lack of critical thought and reasoning regarding the new president and his policies.

The second segment looked at the military viewpoint of the new president, specifically interviews with some U.S. Marines and members of a veteran's organization. This election, as with any presidential election, was very important to most of us in the military/future military community, since we elected our commander-in-chief for the next fours years. As a new member of this community, it was newly significant to me, especially given that we are involved in a global war on terrorism, and the viewpoints of the outgoing and incoming administration are radically different about the ways and means of prosecuting it. As the interviews with the Marines reflected, there is a general sense of pessimism among service members about Obama. Issues like doubts about his overseas courses of action, and widespread opposition to policies such as getting ride of the “don't ask, don't tell” policy for homosexual service members prevents any real enthusiasm for the new president. I think it would be fair to say that he has a lot to prove, as do most new leaders in a position like the presidency. The interviews with the veteran's organization were a surprising contrast, as they were very optimistic based on the way in the incoming administration was already reaching out to them about veteran's affairs and policy. They were expecting a positive change in the way in the government was involved in caring for veterans.

The third segment focused on a school project where students had written letters to the president with advice and requests for things that they hoped he would do in office. The letters obviously reflected an elementary level of thinking and concerns, but I was concerned by the way in which the kids seemed to see the president as a sort of Santa Claus who would fix various “problems” and give out things that they wanted. It saddened me to see the lack of real knowledge of what the president's constitutional role in government is, and the dependence already evident in the students on government to fix their problems. Once again, the messages also reflected the unfortunate level of both national media and individual adulation for an unproven leader.

The third segment highlighted conservatives who were upset over certain conservative pastors who prayed at Obama functions—such as Rev. Rick Warren at the inauguration. Many said that these pastors were traitors, and/or were used by the Obama team as tools in presenting an image of inclusiveness. One pastor, Rev. Joe Hunter, said that the image projected by this sense of unwillingness to even talk to the other side is damaging to the outside view of the Christian faith. He feels that Obama is sincere when he “reaches out” to the conservative side on certain issues, not just politically conniving. Interestingly, Hunter also thinks that it was fine to have openly gay Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson pray at an inauguration ceremony, saying that we need to have more inclusiveness, and cooperation when it comes to religion and government. I think that it's fine for a conservative minister to participate in the Obama inauguration and government, as long as they “stick to their guns” on the issues. I disagree with Hunter, however, that the Obama administration is sincere in “reaching out” to religious conservatives, and I strongly disagree with him about the need for “inclusiveness” when it comes to people like Robinson. The Obama team is composed of some politically savvy people who know a good move when they see it and are willing to exploit when necessary to project an image. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding—the choice of an incredibly divisive figure like Robinson belies the message of unity that the Obama team is attempting to project, and the promotion of radically pro-abortion, pro-gay rights positions demonstrates a complete rejection of the positions of most religious conservatives.

The fourth segment of the podcast covered a company that had made a very smart and astute business move early in the campaign and contracted to produce buttons, signs, t-shirts for the Obama campaign. The company started out with 30 employees, and jumped to about 500 employees in early November. Ironically, once Obama was elected, business plummeted and the had to release many employees, dropping to about 50 at the time of the interviews. Like President Obama, now that the campaign is over, they have to make some difficult, real-world decisions.

The fifth section was about the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The interview featured a Navy lawyer who had a worked as a defense attorney at Guantanamo who talked about his frustrations with what he saw as a deeply flawed system. I was disappointed (although unsurprised) by the strong bias of the segment toward the “anti-Gitmo” viewpoint, and the complete and obvious disregard for the status of the detainees at Guantanamo as enemy combatants and war criminals who do not and should not enjoy the same legal rights and privileges as American citizens. This is typical of the debate surrounding Guantanamo Bay and other military prisons, and clouds the truth about the purpose of these facilities.

Segment six featured a number of on-the-street type interviews with individuals about their views of the new president as a person, their thoughts on his role in the history of civil rights, and their hopes, doubts, and fears of what his administration means. Of all the segments, I thought this was the most balanced, since it featured a wide range of viewpoints, from the adulating to the unfortunately often-overlooked views of those who have grave doubts about Obama's policies and leadership. This final segment provided a welcome balanced conclusion. While the show was unsurprisingly left-leaning on the whole, I think the ending reflected the views of the country the best. The election of Obama, while historical in the basic fact that he is indeed the first black man to hold the office, is not a watershed, unifying political event. Americans are a diverse group of people, and there are many, thankfully, who still think independently, and are waiting to see if Barack Obama can “produce” and come through on the claims that he made while campaigning. There are quite a few of us who hope that he is unsuccessful when it comes to implementing many of his stated policies. My final thought coming away from listening to “The Inauguration Show” was that for all the campaigning and all the pre-election hype, in the end it is history that will be the best and truest judge of President Obama. Words are one thing, but actions are another, and the coming years will show America, one way or another, just what kind of leader it has placed in the Oval Office, and the effect he will have on This American Life.

Christmas and the Foundation of Law

Merry (belated, I know...) Christmas everyone! Yes, you can actually still say that, believe it or not. I'm not here though, to harp on the needless "controversy" over the proper greeting to use pre-December 25th. In a nutshell, I think "Happy Holidays," "Season's Greetings," etc.---as a politically correct substitute, that is---are silly, since everyone knows what you're talking about anyway. If you're one of those ridiculous individuals who get offended, then grow a thicker skin! It's two well-meant words referencing an international holiday for crying out loud, so stop being a complete wacko or wimp (or both!).

Was that harping? Anyhow, the bigger issue, as many have recognized before this writer, is the basic freedoms involved in the censorship of Christmas---most importantly freedom of speech and religion. The whole Christmas-in-public issue is way bigger than just the phrase, and this single issue is in turn just one of a panoply of issues that are affected by these two of the most controversial elements of American freedom. I feel as if I would like to address both of these issues comprehensively, but I'll be honest and admit it's difficult to know where to begin. Since I personally dislike politicizing Christmas, though, I'll start from the broader side of the issue.

Freedom of religion and speech, perhaps more than some freedoms, seem to me to be two of the most closely connected of the fundamental American freedoms. This connection, is, admittedly, mostly one-sided, but still important. What is freedom of religion without a corresponding right to express it when and where you please? Given the many, and often twisted, definitions of these freedoms, I think it would be useful to define a few terms first. What is freedom of religion? Freedom of religion, as established in the United States Constitution, is the freedom of individuals to worship as they please without fear of government intervention, or discrimination from their fellow citizens. The government is also prohibited from establishing a state religion. What the Constitution does not provide for is any sort of "wall of separation" between religion and the government. The Constitution may say no to state-established and run religion, such as many of its authors were familiar with in the Anglican Church of England, but it does not prohibit the interaction of faith and public office. The whole "wall of separation" idea was invented by Thomas Jefferson (who was not an author of the Constitution) in a private letter to a group of Baptists he was trying to convince to support him. Contrary to this, many of the founders, and many of the most prominent statesmen in our nation's history, has been convinced of the importance of faith and of seeking the guidance of a Higher Power while they held office---and of doing so publicly. I can't speak for them, but from what I have read and studied of early American history, I can't help but think that many of the greatest men in our history would have been frightened, even horrified, by the modern idea than in order for government to be the government of all, it and its members must offend none by public religious professions, displays, or references. This is not what religious freedom is about! In fact, by insisting that government be religion-free (and I think it is fair to point out that most of these protests are directed against the Christian faith in government) the ACLU-types are actually restricting that very free exercise of religion that the Constitution is meant to protect.

The second freedom, the freedom of speech, is bound up in a brotherhood of controversy with the first. This freedom has been exploited to cover as wide, maybe a wider, range of controversial behaviors as any. I won't go into a case history here---that would be a bit long and more than a bit discouraging. But I do want to say this: the First Amendment to the Constitution was meant to ensure that the citizens of a new nation had the right to express their feelings, beliefs, and convictions publicly or privately without fear of being persecuted in any manner for their words. When considered against the backdrop of history, where words against a king were considered treason, the expressed ideas of freedom were likely to get you arrested, the straight-forward meaning of this protective clause is obvious.

So, this is the base of the issue, what now? Well, remember that the Christmas issue is just a part of the controversy surrounding the public expression of religion. It has become fashionable over the past few decades to hold forth the idea that government and religion must be separated. As I mentioned above, this concept has been pushed forward despite the original intent of the very laws that are cited in its defence. Whether it's Christmas, Easter, the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, an expression of faith by a public figure in a public function, or the application of religious principle to a question of policy, concerted efforts have been and continue to be made to drive religion from government. This is of great concern to me because, first of all, it undermines basic American freedoms---the freedom of religion and the freedom of individuals and groups to express that faith. In other words, government establishment of non-religion is just as bad as establishment of religion. Second, these attempts affect the very foundation of our government system. This system is founded upon a bedrock of law and order that is itself influenced strongly by religious faith and principle. But can't we be flexible, you ask, and adapt to the modern age, where we are less interested in religion and more diverse in religious beliefs besides? My answer is no. If you attempt to twist the foundation, or worse, remove the bedrock, you will threaten collapse to the whole. I don't wish to sound like an alarmist, predicting the end of society if we stray but a little, but I refuse to back away from the importance of recognizing, and most definitely not repressing, the foundations of our country.

I have been recently reminded of this important issue by a study of 19th century Russian history. Edward Crankshaw's excellent and highly readable work, The Shadow of the Winter Palace, is valuable for many reasons, not the least of which is that it brings light for the student of history to an often dark, yet extremely important period in Russian history which led up to the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of a system which haunted the world through the last century and continues its influence to this day. What I wish to point out, however, is the lack of understanding in Russian society of the need for law, and more importantly of the basis of law. Like many monarchical societies, the word of the Tsar was the only law of the land. There were regulations and orders, yes, but there was no foundational system of law like that which we all too easily take for granted in America. And corresponding to this absence, there were no religious principles that would allow the majority an understanding of the basis and need for law. There was Orthodoxy, yes, but as Crankshaw points out, the priesthood was often as corrupt and secular as their contemporaries in government. The religion itself was for far too many nothing more than a form, a means to an end. Crankshaw explains this void very clearly while speaking of the early revolutionary A. I. Herzen. He writes that "Like so many Russians he [Herzen] did not understand what law was about....In Russia the law itself, the very principle of law, is and always has been widely regarded with suspicion." He goes on to say that this distrust did not rise so much from the ways in which the law can be perverted, but "partly from the traditional understanding that the Tsar himself can be the only maker of laws and, at the same time, stands above all laws, [and] partly from an aspect of anarchic spirit to which the deliberate cult of autocracy was developed as an antidote..." This "anarchic spirit" was to manifest itself in violent fashion in the next century as the ugly specter of Communism. And this was what struck me most forcefully as I was reading---one of the many problems that manifested itself in Communism was its stringent official adherence to the code of atheism. I have always viewed this as a repression necessary for the survival of Communism; religion was a threat to be suppressed. But in reading The Shadow of the Winter Palace, I realized that religious repression was not primarily a symptom of Communism, but more importantly, that its absence was a root enabler of the conditions that led to the rise and acceptance of Communism. This is because it was the absence of foundational moral beliefs that created the general Russian suspicion of the rule of law. As Crankshaw points out, even the rejection by religious (Orthodox) Russians of any merit in Western (Roman/Protestant) faith was extremely harmful, because "they rejected, without comprehending, the concept of the rule of law which they equated with arid and hypocritical legalism." (emphasis mine) What Crankshaw does not delve into, but which I believe is vital, is why these concepts (law and the Western faith) are so intimately linked. The rule of law is founded on principles that draw their very being out of the principles of religion. The ideals that all men are equal, that there are absolutes of right and wrong, that there is original sin, and therefore a need for a government system, are all drawn directly from the pages of the Christian faith---from the Bible. Without these and other foundational principles, attempts to create the rule of law artificially fall into just the sort of hypocrisy and legalism that many Russians despised and feared. This is very nearly (at the most basic level) what happened in Russia. Once the Tsar was removed, the government fell into the hands of those who promised a form of law, and delivered---not the true rule of law---but the misuse of law and power to subject a people to an ideology.

Western law is not, of course, perfect. America and her Constitution are not perfect. But it's worth pointing out that in a world of "banana republics," America has for over two hundred years enjoyed by and large the rule of law, order, and peaceful transfers of power between governmental administrations of widely differing viewpoints. This is directly attributable to the foundation, not just of law, but of the principles which inform that law, upon which the country is founded. Through looking at the Russian example, I guess I've come around the long way to point I was making before---you cannot today hope to deny the religious heritage of our country or prohibit its free expression, even in government, without risking the structure of the country as a whole. The lesson that I wanted to draw from Russia is that you cannot expect a society to embrace the rule of law without a basis in the religious faith that serves to establish that law. To deny this is to doom a country to fall in one form or another into the same fate as Russia for much of the 20th century.

So in the end there is much more involved in the "Merry Christmas" controversy than just recognizing December 25th and the surrounding "holiday" season for the holiday that the whole celebration is really about---we all know it's Christmas. The lesson for the conservative politician, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or any other faith is that our freedoms of religion and speech are far more than just peripheral matters that sit in the shadow of "bigger" battles of the likes of taxes and national defence. Recognizing the importance of religion in the public sphere, whether you follow it in some form yourself or not, is not an option. Our country was founded upon the precepts of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, and to deny them is to deny our country the very essence of the foundation that it needs for future stability and growth.

"Mount Obama" ?

Well, care to take a nice vacation and visit a historic mountain this winter? Escape from the cold (whatever happened to global warming by the way?) and take a trip to the West Indies island of Antigua and climb Mount Obama! What?! Good question, but it's true---apparently the prime minister down there is so inspired by the "historic" victory of an American presidential candidate, that he wants to rename his island's highest mountain---all 402 meters of it---Mount Obama. Really? I mean, come on, the guy hasn't even been coronat-....oops, inaugurated...yet, and he's already got at least one elementary school, probably two, named after him, and now a mountain in the West Indies? Not, by the way, that I'd be particularly impressed by being named after a 402 m hill in a country that the vast majority of Americans couldn't even point out on a map, but still... The point is, the whole aura of the jokingly termed "Messiah's" historic election is really going too far. Sure, if Obama has a successful one- or (God-forbid) two-term presidency, even if that's by liberal standards, I can understand naming a school or two, a highway, even an airport after him---Bush #1 got that, after all. But let me say very clearly that merely being the first black man to win the U.S. presidency does not qualify any person to be adulated to the extent that Barack Obama has been. Now, the obvious objection to my objection is that if it had been a black Republican who got elected, I would be saying the same things about my candidate. Truth be told, I would be a lot more excited about most Republican president-elects than almost any Democrat. But when it comes down to it, my goal is to hold to the standard so clearly enunciated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: the ideal that every person would be judged by the "content of their character," not the color of their skin.

And this is really where my concern lies. I could honestly care less about a mountain in a two-bit West Indian island nation. But I do care when many Americans, and apparently a few people around the world, start to honor a man for success that he has not yet achieved. Sure he got elected, but so could any young, charismatic Democrat given the circumstances of the past election. And yes, he is the first black president, but when it comes down to leading a successful government---so what?! The thinking person should be far more concerned about his execution of the office down the road, not what he looks like. Like King implied, this should be the ideal of the equality movement, but sadly, it has devolved into a struggle where people are still judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character---it's just the reverse of the oppression that King faced, and it's just as bad for progress toward the goal of true equality.

Just the other day I watched the film Glory Road, which I highly recommend as both a good movie and a good lesson about true triumph in the struggle for racial equality. The film tells the story of a college basketball coach in Texas who was the first in the country to start and sub black players only during an NCAA championship game. The story is more than one of the steps in the long course toward racial equality, however. The story is one of a coach who was determined to win, and who stepped outside the lines of the way things were done in order to find the very best talent and craft a team that could do so. His team did not win, however, because it had a coach with the moral courage to start black players, admirable as that was. It won because it had a coach and eventually an entire team that was devoted to hard work, constant practice, and playing fundamental basketball. As might be expected in the time frame of the sixties, especially the sixties in the South, the team faced criminal discrimination and hate, but they chose in the end to pull together to work together---black and white---for victory. In the end, it was not about proving that they had the right skin color to win, it was about proving that they had the mental toughness and physical talent to win, regardless of color.

Barack Obama's election was another step in the what has been a long course toward a country that does not discriminate based on the color of a person's skin. I understand the significance of this step. But I will only respect Barack Obama as a president and a leader when he begins to prove, as president, that he has the wisdom and courage to lead and defend our country. Who knows, maybe Barack will be worthy of a mountain someday---but let him prove himself worthy by the manner in which he governs first. The largely unthinking, persona-based adulation of the masses means nothing when it comes down to leading a country, and I can only hope that this sad, odd level of hero-worship---a far cry from responsible civic duty---will one day be based on something solid. While I imagine that I will rarely agree with President Obama's policies, I am willing to respect him as leader---but he must earn that respect, from me and from every American.