Entries Tagged 'Politics' ↓

The L.A. Times has a revealing story about John McCain’s faith. A sample:

McCain is most comfortable talking about his religious awakening during his 5 1/2 years in captivity, where his connection to God grew stronger and he served as “room chaplain” for a small group of prisoners.

In his early life he was influenced by his “deeply religious” father, who relied on his faith in a long struggle with alcoholism. Prayer and church became an “ingrained part” of McCain’s life at his high school, where he attended chapel every morning and on Sunday evenings, even after church, he says.

McCain says in those days, he was a self-absorbed rule-breaker who became a hard-partying naval aviator. It was not until after his plane was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967, he wrote in his memoir, “Faith of My Fathers,” that he learned to “grasp” faith tightly. In solitary confinement, he prayed “more often and more fervently than I ever had as a free man.”

“I was very slow in maturing,” he said aboard his campaign plane. “I knew right from wrong; I knew the Bible; I knew the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed and the tenets of my faith. And although I neglected them, the time came that I could fall back on them as a net, as a way of salvation, literally.”

Often his faith helped him “get through another minute,” he said. At the same time, McCain said, he learned to be “careful not to ask God to do things that were temporal rather than spiritual.”

In McCain’s first talk as chaplain, he cautioned fellow prisoners not to pray for their release — reminding them of a parable in which Jesus was asked whether it was right to pay taxes. “He held up the coin and said, ‘Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s,’ ” McCain said, recalling his lecture. “The point of my talk was we were doing Caesar’s work when we went into combat, so we really shouldn’t ask God” for release.

That lesson guided McCain not to pray for his own personal success. “I pray to do the right thing so I won’t look back in regret or embarrassment or even shame that I betrayed my principles and my faith,” he said.

McCain began attending a Baptist church after marrying Cindy McCain in 1980 and moving to Arizona. At North Phoenix Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, McCain was attracted to the pastor’s message “that we’re all sinners, but we can benefit from God’s grace if we recognize those sins and move forward,” he said.

Although some religious leaders contend that McCain has not said enough about how his faith influences his positions, his stance on abortion is clear. McCain is a staunch opponent. He said that his view that life begins at conception is based “to some degree” in his religious faith.

Some quirks (not praying for his own success or even release from the POW camp), some insights (”we were doing Caesar’s work”), some solid theology (sin & grace; dependence on the Creeds). At least he stands squarely against the gospel of success that plagues, the confusion of kingdoms, and the content-free theology that plagues contemporary Christianity. Maybe he associates all of that with contemporary evangelicalism, which is why he keeps his distance. Or do you think this is not an adequate confession of faith?

HT: Mark Stricherz at Get Religion.

Barack Obama took North Carolina, and Hillary Clinton took Indiana. It looks like the Democratic nominee is going to be up to the superdelegates. And why not? That’s what they are there for.

The question they all must be asking is, who would be the strongest candidate against John McCain? Pretend that you are a superdelegate whose main interest is winning. Who do you think would be the most formidable candidate? (Both Republicans and Democrats can play this game.)

P.S.: Actually, Obama won enough delegates in Indiana to make him almost impossible to overtake. IF Hillary withdraws today (and I’ll be on a plane most of the day so unable to update), the question still remains. How formidable a candidate will Obama be against John McCain? Or, put another way, does McCain have a chance?

The colorfully eccentric conservative Boris Johnson beat out the incumbent Marxist “Red Ken” Livingstone as mayor of London, part of an overwhelming Tory victory over Labour (sic) in England’s off-year elections. According to this article, How Boris Johnson finally grew up to grasp his shot at redemption - Times Online , Mayor-elect Johnson’s lifelong ambition was to be elected President of the United States. He was born in New York, so he could actually qualify under the constitution as being “natural born.”

Unlike, maybe, John McCain!

The argument was inevitable: If Barack Obama is being held responsible for the views of his preacher, shouldn’t Republicans be held responsible for the views of all of those right wing white preachers who support them and who can sound (especially to secularists) just as whacky? See E. J. Dionne Jr. - Fair Play for False Prophets - washingtonpost.com. Is there a moral equivalence here? How would you answer this argument, or can it be answered?

Anne Applebaum writes about the London mayoral race, between a clownish upper-class Tory and the incumbent, a clownish Marxist. It has degenerated into a rather comical clash of personalities. She suggests that this is a picture of the post-ideological politics that many of us claim we want. In our postmodernist frame of mind, ideas do not matter (since there is no truth), so personality and entertaining shenanigans are all that is left. Here is what she says:

This is a personality contest, and a deeply unserious one at that: If the good people of London really thought their traffic mattered that much, Boris wouldn’t be a candidate and Ken would never have been elected in the first place. But it’s a competition nevertheless worth watching. This campaign could well be a blueprint for future elections since it is “post-modern,” and post-ideological, in the deepest sense: In a world in which “issues” are not the issue and no one takes political parties seriously anymore, there’s nothing left to talk about except who said what to whom and whose tongue was sharper while doing so.

Usually, we don’t have this problem in the United States, our politics being too partisan and our nation too divided to allow for it. But a glimpse of what it could be like is available in the form of the Democratic primary, which has also deteriorated, unsurprisingly, into a particularly nasty personality clash. Any long-drawn-out contest between two people who don’t — let’s face it — differ that much on fundamental issues will invariably turn into farce; whether it’s an amusing one, as in London, or a “bitter” one, as in Pennsylvania, depends on the characters of the candidates involved.

So three cheers, then, for ideological politics or at least for real clashes of ideas, and let’s hope our presidential election, when we get to it, includes some: At least ideologically divisive elections make everyone talk about things that matter.

I think she overstates the matter, or, perhaps like post-ideological Londoners, misses that there is a huge ideological divide between the conservative Tory and “Red Ken” who defends Stalin and who wanted to stage a rally celebrating Fidel Castro. Ideologies are still important, though perhaps the public is getting so postmodern they don’t even recognize them. Still, the reduction of politics to personality, image, and soap opera is probably the true postmodernist political legacy.

The Pope has said that politicians who support abortion should not receive Communion. And yet, at his big masses in New York City and Washington, D.C., pro-abortion politicians from Nancy Pelosi to Rudy Giulianni took Communion. (Rudy should not have been allowed to anyway, due to his being in his third marriage.) This wasn’t Pope Benedict’s fault, who was not involved in the distribution; rather, it is being described as deliberate disobedience from the Archbishops of New York and Washington, who invited the politicians to the event, seated them prominently, and had them served Communion. See Robert D. Novak - For Pro-Choice Politicians, a Pass With the Pope - washingtonpost.com.

UPDATE: Now New York’s Cardinal Egan is saying that he had an “understanding” with the pro-abortion Giulianni that he would not receive the eucharist in NY parishes, but that he violated that agreement by receiving communion from the Pope. The Cardinal said that he would talk with the former mayor. See this. It still seems like this friendly arrangement–come see the pope, we’ve got great seats for you at Yankee Stadium, we’ll still hang out, we’re good buddies, just don’t take communion–stops short of actual church discipline.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is taking advantage of his notoriety, speaking at an NAACP event, being on Bill Moyer’s PBS show, and now speaking at the National Press Club, no less. Guarded by Nation of Islam operatives and basking in the limelight, he is unrepentant, repeating his charges that America deserved the 9/11 attacks, that the US government engineered the HIV virus to commit genocide against black people, etc., etc. Now he’s also saying that Muslims are saved. See Liveblogging Wright at the National Press Club. Doesn’t Rev. Wright see how he is hurting the campaign of his parishioner, Barack Obama?

UPDATE: Here is a clue: It seems that Rev. Wright’s address at the National Press Club was arranged by Barbara Reynolds, an “enthusiastic” Clinton supporter!

ANOTHER UPDATE: But maybe not.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been taking every opportunity to share her favorite Bible passage:

“The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us honor the earth and our future generations with a commitment to fight climate change.”

Apparently, it’s a favorite verse of hers. She has used it in official statements on global warming, the budget, Martin Luther King Day, Christmas, and why she’s a Democrat.

The word-hoard of the English language keeps growing, as new words come into existence and into our vocabulary. This article–Harold Meyerson - Back to The ’60s - washingtonpost.com–gives us “Sixtiesism,” which could be defined as a reversion to the issues and mindset that characterized the 1960’s. The article also coins a related word: Sixties-ization. Meaning imposing the issues and mindset of the 1960’s on contemporary times or on an individual.

The author is using those terms to analyze the current Democratic presidential race, as all of those elderly Sixties survivors–Rev. Wright, those Weather Underground terrorists–and the Sixties issues of Civil Rights and Peace are being injected, for better or worse, into today’s campaigns.

Still, the words are the best part of the argument. So what are some other examples of Sixtiesism? Of Sixtiesization?

Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by double digits in Pennsylvania. She seems to have the momentum now, though it will be nearly impossible for her to overcome Obama’s lead in delegates, which he racked up earlier in the campaign. Back then, he was a breath of fresh air, promising an end to ideological warfare, transcending race, and embodying a politics of hope. Lately he has been coming across as just another liberal politician. Racial divisiveness is back in politics, as is the old class warfare that Democrats always seem to want to wage and always seem to wage in a way that it backfires on them. Part of the problem may be the Clintons backing him into these corners. Also, now that he has become the candidate of choice of the party’s harder left, they may be affecting his rhetoric. But is there a way for Obama to get back to his original image?

P. J. O’Rourke is a satirist–a very funny guy–who got to ride on an aircraft carrier recently. He applies that experience, including witnesses the pilots’ courage and skill, to former carrier pilot John McCain. From 24 Hours on the ‘Big Stick’:

Some people say John McCain isn’t conservative enough. But there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo. Conservatism is also a matter of honor, duty, valor, patriotism, self-discipline, responsibility, good order, respect for our national institutions, reverence for the traditions of civilization, and adherence to the political honesty upon which all principles of democracy are based. Given what screw-ups we humans are in these respects, conservatism is also a matter of sense of humor. Heard any good quips lately from Hillary or Barack?

A one-day visit to an aircraft carrier is a lifelong lesson in conservatism. The ship is immense, going seven decks down from the flight deck and ten levels up in the tower. But it’s full, with some 5,500 people aboard. Living space is as cramped as steerage on the way to Ellis Island. Even the pilots live in three-bunk cabins as small and windowless as hall closets. A warship is a sort of giant Sherman tank upon the water. Once below deck you’re sealed inside. There are no cheery portholes to wave from.

McCain could hardly escape understanding the limits of something huge but hermetic, like a government is, and packed with a madding crowd. It requires organization, needs hierarchies, demands meritocracy, insists upon delegation of authority. An intricate, time-tested system replete with checks and balances is not a plaything to be moved around in a doll house of ideology. It is not a toy bunny serving imaginary sweets at a make-believe political tea party. The captain commands, but his whims do not. He answers to the nation.

Robert D. Novak finds the source of Barack Obama’s “bitterness” comment:

Obama’s new resemblance is less to Kennedy or Reagan than to leftist author Thomas Frank, whose 2004 book, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?,” answered the liberal conundrum: Why do ordinary Americans vote against their own economic interests to support Republicans? Frank explained that “deranged” and “lunatic” Kansans were led away by Republicans from material concerns to social issues. Obama similarly described small-town Americans turning to guns and the Bible in frustration over government’s failure to take care of them — a more genteel version of Frank’s thesis. That raises the question, “What’s the matter with Obama?”

Almost everybody I encounter in politics is familiar with Frank’s bestseller. Democrats are united in embracing his theory but are divided about its rhetoric. While sophisticated Democratic politicians regard the book as condescending toward lower-income Americans who voted for Reagan, grass-roots party activists consider it gospel. They tell me that Obama should not back away from what got him in trouble: his declaration at a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco that “bitter” small-towners in Pennsylvania and elsewhere “cling to guns or religion.”

Obama fans, attention to that comment he made in San Francisco is not a matter of jumping on a statement or refusing to accept his explanation or not putting the best construction on everything. This is an issue of Obama’s ideology. It is important to know his political philosophy. Does he believe that economics and economic oppression account for people’s social and religious beliefs? That is, in fact, the common assumption among many people on the left. He is campaigning on the promise to transcend liberal/conservative ideologies. It is surely legitimate to inquire what he believes. Isn’t it?