Looking for Patriotism

This week National Public Radio reported on Somali-Americans recruited into terrorism. It got me thinking why these kids whose parents had gotten an opportunity in the States to start a new life would be compelled to go back to Somalia and fight Jihad. Following up I considered the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, popular culture's references to anti-American sentiments, and partisan attacks; all of these are symptoms of the unraveling of our American identity.

Patriots are not ignorant, flag-waving yes-men blindly following selfish old white men who think they know better than everyone. This is the image of a patriot protesters of the '60s and'70s retalliated against. McCarthyism, Jim Crow, the war machine, and Wall Street big shots were the face of America in that era. So many were so very frustrated they rebelled. Consider these lyrics from a popular song:

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,
Creedence Clearwater Revival, "Fortunate Son"

There is a sad situation, then, where, as John Edwards put it, we have "two Americas." This stratification and sense of injustice and animosity threatens to tear our country apart. Like sectarian violence in the Middle East and immigrant anti-nationalism in Europe, this disparity among Americans is tearing us apart.

Patriotism is the answer. What brings us to the table should be our sense of national identity and the shared values and responsibilities we as Americans have. We will always have economic disparity. We will always have bigotry. We will always have disagreements. We will always have poverty, hunger, crime, favoritism. As Americans we can wrestle through these things without ripping our nation apart.

When someone says, "I'm embarrassed to be an American," or "they are un-American," or even hopes for the destruction of our nation and our neighbors they are chipping away at the integrity of our national identity. The Stars and Stripes, our Constitution, our government, and our national heritage are symbols of our country's greatness. Its values are greater than our differences. Its institutions are greater than partisan manipulation. Alexis de Toqueville is aattributed as saying,

America is great because she is good.
When she ceases to be good, she will no longer be great.

May we never lose that sense of goodness and belief in a good America.

The End of Debate

Friday's Presidential debate was anything but. Neither candidate behaved Presidential, nor did they debate. This election was supposed to be different. Both candidates touted high ideals and promised a campaign of ideas, not words. It has deteriorated into zingers and talking points meant to woo voters.

Friday night was supposed to be a thoughtful debate of those ideas. It was an excellent format: moderated by Jim Lehrer (host of the esteemed PBS program Newshour), the topics would be presented, each would give a two-minute summary, then they would debate the ideas for five minutes with each other. This was the format agreed upon by the candidates months ago.

Instead of thoughtful debate over ideas, Senators McCain and Obama disintegrated into election-year jabs and political talking points. The ideas presented were cut from advisors and broad plans, but little was foundational or substantial. Obama used the "Bush-McCain mantra" while McCain continued his "voice of experience" argument. McCain pushed his "I'm a maverick," and "earmarks are evil" comfort points, even when they were vaguely relevant. Obama postured "what I've called for" as if the President writes legislation.

Lehrer compelled them over and over "say it directly to him." "I'm determined to get you all to talk to each other," Lehrer implored. Obama finally engaged, McCain never looked to his opponent (or the camera). This is a position where world leaders confront each other. These guys must prove they can engage. We want a lion who will lead, not a golden retriever who will dutifully fetch.

I wasn't around in the 1860s, so I did not get to see Lincoln and Douglas debate, but I have seen high schoolers and college students follow guidelines and engage each other more passionately and with less posturing than these two. If one of these me wants my vote, they should get over their hubris and one-upsmanship. McCain should stop trying to be Teddy Roosevelt and Obama stop pointing fingers at others bad judgment calls.

In my opinion, McCain lost what could be construed as a debate handily. He drew the discussion off topic and shallowly defended his various points. Obama, while casting a broad net of ideas, did present considerable arguments for his positions. Earmarks are necessary for congressional business to get done and they are abused, but the President will have to let congress deal with those because he does not have a line-item veto. Presidents' agendas get overtaken by events (consider the Bush campaign of '00 and '04 who won as a "compassionate conservative" but became the progenitor of overarching executive power).

Watch online at www.youdecide2008.com.

Revisited

I listened again to the debate. The candidates did, at points, delve deeply into issues and explained the merits of their viewpoints and how they make decisions. It was regrettable, however, that political pandering and smearing were so prominent and sullied the stronger parts.

Donald Miller's Benediction

I was proud of Donald Miller's benediction after Monday's DNC Convention. He is influential, thoughtful, and represents a new evangelical Christian. Social justice will take a lot of us out of the GOP this year. The Republican party will have to answer for its missteps and the Democrats will have to live up to their rhetoric. The new Christian majority has a broader platform and is actively leading in setting things right.

The Military-Industrial Complex

Dwight D. Eisenhower, distinguished military general and President of the United States, in the wake of World War II, presented a speech that rings ominously true today. In it he proposed the dangers that could occur if our nation relied on an intimate relationship between the government and the defense equipment industry. I cannot add to his words without taking away from their poignancy, so here I present section IV of his speech.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Read the speech at http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Watch an excerpt:

Throwing Stones

I am tired of the Elliot Spitzer mess. Really! It was a big story and has important implications for the state of New York. It is an historic moment. It is a situation we could all learn from.

What gets me is the political posturing and finger pointing. People are actually gloating over the fall of the governor. Nobody likes their laundry aired in the public, and these folks are all in it! Like driving past a train wreck, we get caught up in the carnage.

I want to scream THIS IS A PERSON! He is hurting. His wife is hurting. His girls are hurting. Jesus stood up for a woman who was caught in adultery. The religious leaders had humilliated her and were going to throw rocks at her untill she bled to death. Jesus told them

Let he who has no sin cast the first stone

The news folks are wrong. The politicians are wrong. The commentators are wrong. Every one of us making judgements about this man's conduct are wrong. No one is perfect. No one deserves a lick of the blessings we enjoy.

Our words are the stones we throw and a person's spirit is the target. A man who has been caught in sin does not need condemnation, but restoration. Sure, we want o see justice and he deserves the punishment for his crimes. But Mr. Spitzer and his family need to know that they're no worse than any of us. Just broken people trying to make it in a messed up world.

Some of us happen to find the mercy of God in spite of it all.

Maybe we need a little revival

You can't be president and head of the military at the same time

"You can't be president and head of the military at the same time." That's not my words, but George W. Bush's [1]. Those were interesting words coming from the United State's Head of State and Commander-in-chief [2]. In light of his words, I contemplated how precarious our democratic government is.

At issue is that President Musharaf overtook the government and has held the government of Pakistan in a military coup. Threatened by Islamists in the rural regions and a popular political adversary in an upcoming election, the president instituted military rule last week, suspending the nation's constitution. Lawyers were furious and have raised a groundswell of resistance.

Ours is a unique situation. We have lived more than two hundred years under this constitution. For most of us, this seems like it will last forever. In an interview on C-SPAN's Afterwords [3], Naomi Wolf, author of "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" pointed out trends she sees toward the gradual end of our liberties as our federal government assumes more executive power.

Perhaps the President's words will serve as a warning to our nation in the near future.

1) read the speech

2) wikipedia: "President of the Unite..."

3) Link to audio interview

Romney on Healthcare: Good ideas

I like presidential candidate Mitt Romney's concept on government healthcare. In a Yahoo! News article, Romney "said he'd leave it up to states to design their own systems."

That's good! Consider how effective it would be for fifty states to try different ways to implement the plan. With competition, ingenuity, and customized care according to regional differences, this sounds workable. Who knows that we may see states competing for residents like corporations for customers by offering better service.

Christian Citizens

This month, I've been wrestling through Romans. Let me start by saying how refreshing it is to be able to wrestle with scripture unashamedly, instead of just sitting back and listening to it then bumping along. Back on track, this morning I was reading in Romans 13 about Christian citizenship.

In short, Paul writes two things that caught my eye.

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

This wasn't written by a guy who is in some tolerant, God-fearing, fair society. Jews in Rome [at the time] were admired and despised. Some saw them as neighbors, business partners and patrons; others considered them a threat to the Empire. The new sect -- Christians -- were especially peculiar, what with their teaching on the Messiah and the Kingdom of God. The Jewish peolple had been kicked out of Rome and were just coming back (see Wikipedia, etc.) and even had disputes with Gentile believers who were running church affairs in their absence. All of this to illustrate things were neither fair nor rosy.

Fast forward to the 1700s. This idea of Democracy catches on, emphasizing individual and community over a central authority. All of a sudden, everyone has a voice. This philosophy catches on like a wildfire. In government, education and even church, everyone's view is relevant. Spawning from democratic thought came schism in the Catholic church and the revolt of the Americans (as well as revolution worldwide). The democratic ideal became our model.

Now, consider the American civil rights movement. Precipitated by unfair treatment, Dr. King rose as the leading voice for "civil disobedience". He got this idea from Ghandi, and East Indian monk, by the way. By nonviolent disobedience, these civil-rights activists changed the laws and perceptions.

Consider, now the second scripture:

5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Many throughout history put up with unfair treatment and even torture because they were submitting to the higher authority. The history of the church in the middle-ages is full of corruption because thoughtful people "submitted to governing authority" because it was the God-ordained order. Many Christians felt it was their duty to obey the laws that stirred the civil rights movement because of the role of government. Catholics and protestants fought it out because it was so sanctioned.

We admire the free-spirits and long to assert our freedom today. We are often admonished to do so in light of what's good. But have we lost something of the fear of the Lord and submitting ourselves in our self-determined culture? Have we become authorities unto ourselves, tossed around by the opinions of men because of our democratic ideals? What is the godly model for society? Are we living that out?

Hate Crimes Bill?

The conservative grass roots are up in arms over H.R. 254 [1], a bill before congress that would prohibit "certain acts of violence" causing "bodily injury... because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person."

For some reason, many of these voices decry the legislation, claiming it will keep pastors from speaking about religious and cultural hot topics. As I read the law, speaking out against something is not a hate crime. Far from it, the bill focuses on physical actions that lead to bodily harm. The only viable argument I see the right making is it "giving homosexuals special rights... alongside race, religion and gender" [2]. This is an extremely tenuous slippery slope argument that is difficult to justify, but, unfortunately, will play into fears of many conservatives who will not look carefully at the bill.

On the conservative side, I think the worse threat is the bill's loose interpretation of interstate activities used to justify the passage. This is a thin line that can be more detrimental to individual liberties than prohibiting physical abuse based on "sexual orientation."

1. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.r.254:
2. http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=9395716

The Fourth Branch

Recently, Washington was turned on its head when The Washington Post reported a story in which the conditions at Walter Reed Hospital's outpatient unit were exposed. The article described neglected facilities and a "messy bureaucracy" that entangles and frustrates wounded soldiers and their families. The article unleashed a backlash within the news media, American homes, and the federal government.

The problems at Walter Reed were not unknown. Over recent years, congress has held hearings addressing the concerns of many regarding treatment of soldiers coming home from the Middle East. The hospital itself has had much praise. As the article points out, its treatment and surgical facilities are powerful. However, this corner of the hospital was neglected. After public outcry, the federal government -- the legislative and executive branches -- frantically responded. Now things are getting done. Now the people are enabled. Now it is a BIG deal.

These events illustrate the power of what has been called "the fourth branch of government". In short, our Constitution establishes three branches of government: the Legislative (which makes laws), Judicial (which interprets these laws in light of the Constitution), and Executive (which carries out and enforces these laws) branches. Unfortunately, even our transparent and democratically-appointed government has many areas of neglect and abuse.

In recent years the press has proven to be a tremendous asset to our country. As the proverb goes, "sunlight is the best of disinfectants". In our society, the press is sunlight that shines in the dark corners of government and communities, allowing "we the people" to communicate concerns, atrocities, and neglect in ways that hold those we elect accountable.