The Wall Street Journal created a bit of a flutter this week by coming out and putting into direct words ideas that many otherwise supportive Republicans have been feeling of late. Namely, that far too long, President Bush has carried on with nearly the exact same team that he entered office with, and this despite a barrage of crises and a full-blown war which are the types of events that generally require a culling process to bring unique talent to the fore.
Consider: even after 9/11 for the longest time there was no obvious change in personnel or methodology from the George Tenet tenure, apart from the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Yet a continuation of "things and people as they were" after a major catastrophic event does not breed confidence, but concern and doubt. It suggests a failure to adapt and learn. The Pearl Harbor debacle was followed by several sackings and re-shufflings of command by FDR, which is what one would expect. Except in cases of truly exceptional talent deliberately retained (MacArthur after the fall of the Philippines, for example), history has shown that setbacks are best followed by some re-shuffling and resignations to show the public that steps are being taken to prevent recurrence, and that new voices probably ignored till now, are being given a chance to be heard.
We are now into the third year of a war in Iraq that while showing distinct promise and a worthy venture, clearly suffers from inertia from some initial wrong decisions on both how to prosecute the war, and what strength level to devote to it, as well as an abject failure to address the public relations side of the failure to clearly account for the WMD claims fiasco. This has been abdicated to the purview of the cable news and talk radio, with little direction and clear speech from the White House public relations sector. Not even the illusion of accountability for the mis-carriage has been provided, or the impression what caused it rectified or at least now understood. It doesn't seem to be realized the serious undermining effects this has as the White House seeks to step up pressure on Iran at home and in Europe with similar references to intelligence and threat danger.
But even aside from the question of credibility in the Iran warnings, the failure to make changes, yes "to fire" when needed, has had a corrosive effect overall. One thing most expected of leadership is to make sure that the right subordinates are in charge. In roundtables and discussions, as well as routinely heard on radio call-ins, its becoming clear that an increasingly large block of Republican voters, and conservatives, and any number of supporters of the administration are becoming very dissatisfied with the lack of `new blood' and any effort to restore vigor and new dynamics to the last part of the second term. There seems a baffling willingness to let confidence shrink to the point where a true lame-duck presidency is now possible, and this despite the fact that ALL three branches of government are under the same party's control. Its truly amazing.
The Dubai ports deal fiasco ---- fiasco in how it was handled, not the fact of its existence -- seems to have proven something of a last straw, and many even among the right-wing openly opposed the administration response, and a split even formed with the Republican held Congress. From Katrina to the Dubai ports deal, and the recent upheaval of sectarian disorder in Iraq, all are congealing to give a picture of a certain and peculiar degree of inattentiveness at best, and obstinance at worst.
It is significant that Brown's firing after Katrina was almost the only clear case of such change, despite the fact that history shows that after a major debacle like 9/11, the Iraq insurgency, Katrina, etc, that for purposes of morale and re-igniting public confidence, obvious and clear changes in staff and those-in-charge should be made by the Executive. The public relations part of this is far more crucial than the actual fact of `just who is to blame-for-what' that tends to tie up thinking. It distracts from the fact that first and foremost, `new blood' and vigor should be appointed to break any perception of inertia, and most especially, to avoid any impression of no changes or repairs made, or lessons learned. Nothing looks as bad as doing nothing different, no personnel shake-ups, after clear setbacks. In most cases, it is in fact, unwise. Often personnel DO have a correlation to such failures, and changes are a way to come back from them.
The Wall Street Journal has simply come out and declared what has been on the minds of many disappointed supporters of Bush's re-election and who do not want to see the second term needlessly reduced to a `lame duck' status that endangers the overall position after 2008 by not responding to the need for new spark and inspiration.
The lightning-rod relationship between VP Cheney and Halliburton, whether one believes it a fabrication and shrill overstatement of some of the media and pundits or not, continues to needlessly undermine and weaken the perception of integrity of the goals. The over-emphasis on secrecy doesn't help here, but is appropriate in military circles where it is not in the civilian Executive. For this reasons it would not be a bad idea for Cheney to move to the SecDef position as the WSJ suggests, for he could bring great force to it, and Condoleeza Rice installed as VP might have opportunity to both cultivate a sense of how much support she might get for a Presidential run, and ideally, to have that possibility "grow" on her, by the proximity and hint of it that the VP's office would provide. She has said she isn't that interested in running, and yet, a stint as VP might allow her the perspective to reconsider. The possibilities of her running in 2008 are important enough to do all that can be done to make it more easier and plausible.
A similar case may hold with SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. The perception that a more massive and stronger hand in Iraq is needed is growing, right alongside the idea of those advocating withdrawal and downsizing. What this means is an important fact that has been overlooked -- those for the war and those opposed have actually reached an unrealized consensus: They are in fact two sides of the same coin - the present course is seen as `too lean' and `unfocused' to properly midwife the new Iraqi nation; to the point where either a stronger hand is needed, or that hand must draw back entirely.
These are just some thoughts. What Wall Street advocates in the administration leadership may be more changes than are necessary, more `shaking up' than is warranted. Yet the falling out with its own Congressional leads is a clear warning that the basis for unity is fraying, patience worn thin. What is clear, is the main point: some visual change in the cabinet prosecuting the war and even domestic policy is clearly needed, for an all levels, the present arrangement and combination around President Bush has about exhausted its reservoir of confidence.
- Anthony
Monday, March 20, 2006
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Faith's convictions and Egalitarianism don't meet easily
Today was Ash Wednesday, inaugurating the Catholic season of Lent with the ritual laying on of ashes. It is a time of reflection and abstinence, as the solemn time of Easter approaches for Christians. However, it so happens this week there has occurred a minor set-to between the Reverand Jerry Falwell and the Jerusalem Post, regarding which Rev. Falwell released a statement this day.
The point of contention is the oft-debated one of whether members of the Jewish faith must convert to Christianity first, before being able to go to heaven. A front page column in the Jerusalem Post by an evangelical pastor and an orthodox rabbi had claimed to "have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity."
Falwell's statement today was a blunt, and categoric rejection of this claim, saying in part:
""While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.
"Dr. Hagee called me today and said he never made these statements to the Jerusalem Post or to anyone else. He assured me that he would immediately contact the Jerusalem Post and request a correction."
But it is not this rejection and clarification that really is pertinent to this writing. For purposes of this post, it doesn't matter which view one believes regarding salvation. Rather, the point of interest is what Falwell said next, for hidden in it is a factor that this blog has long considered crucial to understanding the current clash dubbed by some, `the culture wars'.
Falwell said this: " "In this age of political correctness and diversity, the traditional evangelical belief that salvation is available only through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is often portrayed as closed-minded and bigoted.
"But if one is to believe in Jesus Christ, he must believe in His words: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by Me' (John 14:6). I simply cannot alter my belief that Jesus is The Way to heaven, as He taught."
A straight-forward declaration of belief, itself hardly surprising. But the key is the phrase "in this age of political correctness and diversity" --- the traditional evangelical position (and a closely related Catholic one for that matter) that maintains that the way to salvation is through Christ is now painted as "closed-minded and bigoted."
Given the strong underpinnings and legacy of Judeo-Christian faith in the history and building of the United States, this shift in thinking continues to baffle and perplex, yay, even anger, many. However, it is submitted that a very basic collision of values underpins this whole debate, and whose pervasive presuppositions are often overlooked. This does not refer to the oft-cited clash of cultures of permissive vs discipline, liberal vs conservative, theists vs atheists, or even good vs evil. If it were just those, the lines would be more clear in their separation, somewhat less ambivalent confusion, and the divisions relatively unblended. But one encounters today several contradictory strands even among believers, regarding some of the apparent demands of scripture and tradition, and what it has to say about right and wrong. A good example is the portion of the Catholic vote that supports abortion rights. On its face, this seems an impossible contradiction. Another would be the Episcopalians ordaining of an openly gay bishop. What makes these signficant is they take place among the groups in question, not are an outside force imposing. How so then?
The reason is something of an elephant in the room: it has not been fully realized how much certain traditional beliefs and habits, no matter how well grounded they may have seemed, quite frankly now appear to contradict American ideals. This is because of the rise of Egalitarian ideals and frames of thought. Yet both liberal and conservative Americans generally (and rightly) see egalitarian views as noble and ideal, differing more on points of detail like whether outcome-based assessments should guide, or instead, emphasis be placed on opportunity and equal consideration. But they tend to agree on the ideal itself, that `sanctioned persecution and marginalization' -- tacit or overt, is not to be advocated or abided. It no longer seems rightly American to judge another's actions. This is carried to its most numbskull extreme by the apologists for foreign enemy actions in wartime, but is found throughout if one just listens and looks.
Enter the real force of several of today's hottest debates on the "values battlefield". The blunt truth is, that as stated and handed down, many religious views and beliefs, as they tend to be expressed, simply don't hesitate to condemn or censure certain behaviors. This is obvious. Its usually called morality in the overall sense. However of late, this same point has come into increasing conflict with the already pre-supposed ideal of Egalitarianism and equal protection. From gay marriage debates to the abortion controversy debacle, we see time and again traditional faith blocks crash headlong into the ideals that instinctively want to limit, reverse, or reject persecutorial or judgemental sounding paradigms.
The problem is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of certain postmodernist attitudes and opinions, which openly subscribe to the self-evident folly of holding all opinions and choices of equal value. Reducing things to a `point of view' perspective against which neither faith or even science can often make a reasoned argument. It needs to be emphasized, however, that as a paradigm, the concept of egalitarianism is not only good, but is what helped make America great. By upholding the dignity of individuals, it gave the necessary room to achieve and innovate that they demonstrably often are denied in more conformist systems of thought -- whether in theocracies like Iran or or super-statist regimes of social engineering like the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, or Communist Korea and China today. Such states tend to go for a one-size fits all, and overall collective at the expense of the rights or even opportunities of any `square pegs' of faith, capability, or orientation. For this reason, to be American is to have an `instinctive' favor toward Egalitarianism, and its correct to do so.
However, of late, the egalitarian concept has become distorted and twisted, to function more as a way to build walls around behavior or practices. The central egalitarian ideal, which drove and animated the nation's spiritual aspirations (in the conventional experience) in terms of "all men are created equal" has moved down that line to a form not far removed from `all choices, cultures and lifestyles are equal' --- and this is especially true if the aforementioned do not `harm another'. Naturally, carried to its extreme, this means any moral judgements or even criticisms not based on truly criminal and hostile behavior cannot be voiced, and that is exactly the trend we are seeing today.
It is proposed that such a `value-free' standard by nature, cannot easily co-exist with, and certainly can rarely agree or give sanction to, any moral judgements, especially those imposed by faith and tradition, which rampant egalitarianism and postmodernism both see as suspect. The basic point is that some of the angst of Christians and Jews in this country, and of theists in general, is driven by the fact they see the culture increasingly modified to accomodate and even normalize some of the most questionable practices in the name of `avoiding bigotry or judgementalism'. Yet what is not realized is that the confusion comes from the fact of failing to recognize that the American ideal has become Egalitarianism (with a strong dose of the work ethic and capitalism still central) and is no longer even paying much lip-service to religious values that are seen as judgemental, seen as not fully inclusive, for precisely the fact that they indeed are not.
Falwell's statement clashed with the built-in desire to believe all faiths are equal. And in some vast omniscient galactic sense, they might objectively be. But that is not the starting point of most doctrines of faith. To understand the current conflict that is growing (and even the war on Islamo-terrorism has some connection) between faith and secular, it helps to to first notice and admit that most religion, by its very dogma and nature, does not, and cannot embrace full egalitarianism. Christians in America need to realize that in some ways, they must choose --- not all or nothing, but *which* view to hold: biblical doctrine OR egalitarianism. America is no longer `a Judeo-Christian' nation in govt and intent (IMO, it indeed was at some time in the past, arguments of revisionists notwithstanding) , but more a secular hegemon. The real key is, things are similar to what they were in the time before Constantine's conversion in the Roman Empire, but when Christianity was a large and influential minority. The culture, the laws, were pagan. It fell to Christians to try to model a better way and witness with their lives and gospel. Not expecting the secular arm or values to reflect them.
When seen against this backdrop, clashes like Falwell's and the attempts to `drive God out of schools' that seem to be going on, make perfect sense, and even show a new way to relate to it. They are in fact attempts to remove any `judgements' that might make for an `unsafe mental' environment for - fill in blank. Because the truth is, yes much holy writ, whether scripture or doctrines, does make judgements and render verdicts on right and wrong. Since it does, it has become ironically less tolerable by the very `tolerate all' culture now extant. So set aside the lingering assumption about the character of the culture being Judeo-Christian (it isn't - especially in the legal and judicial realm), and stop expecting it to reflect those values, and thus mistaking `what's in vogue' for what should be. Failure to keep this distinction in mind is what really makes for the `slippery slope'. There have always been people who will make self-destructive choices; danger only arises when the majority loses sight of what is indeed, self-destructive. Christians and Jews (or any theists) who fail to see the change in paradigm emphasis that has taken place risk losing their distinctive message in attempts (by some) to mandate some legal conformity. Instead, model anew and witness to those values to move hearts as those in other pagan lands did and do.
Some musings pondered as the Lenten season begins.
The point of contention is the oft-debated one of whether members of the Jewish faith must convert to Christianity first, before being able to go to heaven. A front page column in the Jerusalem Post by an evangelical pastor and an orthodox rabbi had claimed to "have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity."
Falwell's statement today was a blunt, and categoric rejection of this claim, saying in part:
""While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.
"Dr. Hagee called me today and said he never made these statements to the Jerusalem Post or to anyone else. He assured me that he would immediately contact the Jerusalem Post and request a correction."
But it is not this rejection and clarification that really is pertinent to this writing. For purposes of this post, it doesn't matter which view one believes regarding salvation. Rather, the point of interest is what Falwell said next, for hidden in it is a factor that this blog has long considered crucial to understanding the current clash dubbed by some, `the culture wars'.
Falwell said this: " "In this age of political correctness and diversity, the traditional evangelical belief that salvation is available only through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is often portrayed as closed-minded and bigoted.
"But if one is to believe in Jesus Christ, he must believe in His words: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by Me' (John 14:6). I simply cannot alter my belief that Jesus is The Way to heaven, as He taught."
A straight-forward declaration of belief, itself hardly surprising. But the key is the phrase "in this age of political correctness and diversity" --- the traditional evangelical position (and a closely related Catholic one for that matter) that maintains that the way to salvation is through Christ is now painted as "closed-minded and bigoted."
Given the strong underpinnings and legacy of Judeo-Christian faith in the history and building of the United States, this shift in thinking continues to baffle and perplex, yay, even anger, many. However, it is submitted that a very basic collision of values underpins this whole debate, and whose pervasive presuppositions are often overlooked. This does not refer to the oft-cited clash of cultures of permissive vs discipline, liberal vs conservative, theists vs atheists, or even good vs evil. If it were just those, the lines would be more clear in their separation, somewhat less ambivalent confusion, and the divisions relatively unblended. But one encounters today several contradictory strands even among believers, regarding some of the apparent demands of scripture and tradition, and what it has to say about right and wrong. A good example is the portion of the Catholic vote that supports abortion rights. On its face, this seems an impossible contradiction. Another would be the Episcopalians ordaining of an openly gay bishop. What makes these signficant is they take place among the groups in question, not are an outside force imposing. How so then?
The reason is something of an elephant in the room: it has not been fully realized how much certain traditional beliefs and habits, no matter how well grounded they may have seemed, quite frankly now appear to contradict American ideals. This is because of the rise of Egalitarian ideals and frames of thought. Yet both liberal and conservative Americans generally (and rightly) see egalitarian views as noble and ideal, differing more on points of detail like whether outcome-based assessments should guide, or instead, emphasis be placed on opportunity and equal consideration. But they tend to agree on the ideal itself, that `sanctioned persecution and marginalization' -- tacit or overt, is not to be advocated or abided. It no longer seems rightly American to judge another's actions. This is carried to its most numbskull extreme by the apologists for foreign enemy actions in wartime, but is found throughout if one just listens and looks.
Enter the real force of several of today's hottest debates on the "values battlefield". The blunt truth is, that as stated and handed down, many religious views and beliefs, as they tend to be expressed, simply don't hesitate to condemn or censure certain behaviors. This is obvious. Its usually called morality in the overall sense. However of late, this same point has come into increasing conflict with the already pre-supposed ideal of Egalitarianism and equal protection. From gay marriage debates to the abortion controversy debacle, we see time and again traditional faith blocks crash headlong into the ideals that instinctively want to limit, reverse, or reject persecutorial or judgemental sounding paradigms.
The problem is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of certain postmodernist attitudes and opinions, which openly subscribe to the self-evident folly of holding all opinions and choices of equal value. Reducing things to a `point of view' perspective against which neither faith or even science can often make a reasoned argument. It needs to be emphasized, however, that as a paradigm, the concept of egalitarianism is not only good, but is what helped make America great. By upholding the dignity of individuals, it gave the necessary room to achieve and innovate that they demonstrably often are denied in more conformist systems of thought -- whether in theocracies like Iran or or super-statist regimes of social engineering like the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, or Communist Korea and China today. Such states tend to go for a one-size fits all, and overall collective at the expense of the rights or even opportunities of any `square pegs' of faith, capability, or orientation. For this reason, to be American is to have an `instinctive' favor toward Egalitarianism, and its correct to do so.
However, of late, the egalitarian concept has become distorted and twisted, to function more as a way to build walls around behavior or practices. The central egalitarian ideal, which drove and animated the nation's spiritual aspirations (in the conventional experience) in terms of "all men are created equal" has moved down that line to a form not far removed from `all choices, cultures and lifestyles are equal' --- and this is especially true if the aforementioned do not `harm another'. Naturally, carried to its extreme, this means any moral judgements or even criticisms not based on truly criminal and hostile behavior cannot be voiced, and that is exactly the trend we are seeing today.
It is proposed that such a `value-free' standard by nature, cannot easily co-exist with, and certainly can rarely agree or give sanction to, any moral judgements, especially those imposed by faith and tradition, which rampant egalitarianism and postmodernism both see as suspect. The basic point is that some of the angst of Christians and Jews in this country, and of theists in general, is driven by the fact they see the culture increasingly modified to accomodate and even normalize some of the most questionable practices in the name of `avoiding bigotry or judgementalism'. Yet what is not realized is that the confusion comes from the fact of failing to recognize that the American ideal has become Egalitarianism (with a strong dose of the work ethic and capitalism still central) and is no longer even paying much lip-service to religious values that are seen as judgemental, seen as not fully inclusive, for precisely the fact that they indeed are not.
Falwell's statement clashed with the built-in desire to believe all faiths are equal. And in some vast omniscient galactic sense, they might objectively be. But that is not the starting point of most doctrines of faith. To understand the current conflict that is growing (and even the war on Islamo-terrorism has some connection) between faith and secular, it helps to to first notice and admit that most religion, by its very dogma and nature, does not, and cannot embrace full egalitarianism. Christians in America need to realize that in some ways, they must choose --- not all or nothing, but *which* view to hold: biblical doctrine OR egalitarianism. America is no longer `a Judeo-Christian' nation in govt and intent (IMO, it indeed was at some time in the past, arguments of revisionists notwithstanding) , but more a secular hegemon. The real key is, things are similar to what they were in the time before Constantine's conversion in the Roman Empire, but when Christianity was a large and influential minority. The culture, the laws, were pagan. It fell to Christians to try to model a better way and witness with their lives and gospel. Not expecting the secular arm or values to reflect them.
When seen against this backdrop, clashes like Falwell's and the attempts to `drive God out of schools' that seem to be going on, make perfect sense, and even show a new way to relate to it. They are in fact attempts to remove any `judgements' that might make for an `unsafe mental' environment for - fill in blank. Because the truth is, yes much holy writ, whether scripture or doctrines, does make judgements and render verdicts on right and wrong. Since it does, it has become ironically less tolerable by the very `tolerate all' culture now extant. So set aside the lingering assumption about the character of the culture being Judeo-Christian (it isn't - especially in the legal and judicial realm), and stop expecting it to reflect those values, and thus mistaking `what's in vogue' for what should be. Failure to keep this distinction in mind is what really makes for the `slippery slope'. There have always been people who will make self-destructive choices; danger only arises when the majority loses sight of what is indeed, self-destructive. Christians and Jews (or any theists) who fail to see the change in paradigm emphasis that has taken place risk losing their distinctive message in attempts (by some) to mandate some legal conformity. Instead, model anew and witness to those values to move hearts as those in other pagan lands did and do.
Some musings pondered as the Lenten season begins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
