Awhile back, a long-time friend wrote to me in regard to my blog of February 5, 2008, that questioned Mitt Romney’s fundraising and spending approaches in support of his candidacy for president. My good friend raised two critical-thinking questions for me: 1) did my concerns about Mitt’s wealth reflect envy on my part, and 2) isn’t Mitt (or anyone else) free to spend his/her money as one chooses?
I am in the process of responding to my friend directly about question #1; that seemed to be too parochial a question to answer within this blog medium. My response to his question #2 is below. The discussion still seems to be pertinent, since Mitt Romney is currently making such an open play for the Republican vice presidential nod.
*****
Do I object to people spending their money as they wish? No, certainly not unless I would invite the same objections to my own spending decisions. I can hope that a person understands that their wealth came from many others, no matter how smart or hardworking or entrepreneurial s/he might be, and therefore there is some level of responsibility due to those “others.” I can hope that people retain their humility in the presence of wealth, realizing that neither wealth nor education necessarily equates with good character, responsibility and fairness. But at the end of the day, it is each person’s decision as to how they use the resources that come their way.
The decisions that they make, and the motivation that drives those decisions, will visibly demonstrate their character, values and judgment. Those decisions thereby serve as the basis of my choices of who I respect not just for their accumulation of wealth, but also for their use of that wealth. If you then choose to go into the public place of government service on my behalf, then my respect of you (or not) now becomes particularly important.
For me, the issues in this instance are neither the accumulation of wealth nor the spending of it. As with most things, it is the thinking and the motivation behind people’s actions that I react to. With Warren Buffet, I admire his success at accumulating wealth (versus his total dollars), AND his humility and grounded-ness at living with his wealth, AND his use of his wealth. With Bill Gates, I can question how he accumulated his wealth, I can accept how he is living with his wealth, and I can respect how he is now using it (though his motivation may still require some examination). With Donald Trump, there is no facet of him and his wealth that begs admiration, unless you consider wealth important for its own sake. But each of these people is certainly free to engage wealth as each chooses.
For Mitt Romney, it was not his wealth I objected to, which he seems to have come to quite legitimately. It is his attitude that came through so pervasively, i.e. that his electability should be predicated on his wealth, that being successful in business inherently qualifies one to be successful in governmental leadership. The reality is that American government is not a business, was never designed from the get-go to be “run like a business” (although that does not preclude utilizing business-like operating efficiencies). Political leadership and achievement is about vision, compromise, building consensus among divergent but equal stakeholders, attending to and balancing conflicting needs rather than playing to “niche market segments” (a la Karl Rove and George Bush). It is not about electability, it is about governing.
The US Congress is not a stockholder’s meeting, the Supreme Court is not a corporate board, and state governments are not subsidiary corporations. It was Romney’s lack of understanding and connection with many facets of the American citizenry, and the failure to truly understand “government” for what it is, that I think ultimately undermined him. It is why his (or any other) campaign must show a broad body of public support – via volunteerism, fundraising, and ultimately votes – in order to qualify one for public office (versus being designated as corporate CEO).
Mitt Romney could have spent as much of his own money as he wanted to get elected. But as Iowa and New Hampshire showed so clearly, if you do not work from a body of principles that comes ahead of electioneering, if you do not ultimately make a human connection with enough people such that they feel you understand them and deserve their trust to act in their collective best interest, no amount of TV ads can buy you the presidential seal.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
12 Year Old Girl Silences the UN
For this blog posting, I am going to let someone else speak . Someone quite eloquent. This is a short video clip of a then-12-year old girl making a speech to a United Nations Conference on Environment and Development a few years ago. The message is still timely. I recommend you click on the following URL location and take a listen.
From the mouths of babes ......
From the mouths of babes ......
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Talking To Your Enemies
“You talk to the most awful in order to get what you claim to be looking for --- Peace. And you will be surprised ... You don’t negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with the person you regard as your enemy.” (Bishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa)
A few weeks ago, former president Jimmy Carter scheduled meetings with Palestinian Hamas leaders in Gaza, and with leaders of Syria. He sought to continue his quest to try to bring some resolution in the Israel / Palestinian / Middle East dilemma. The effort was based upon his belief that no progress will be made without recognizing the reality of the role and influence that these players have, whether we may like it or not. His efforts were predictably criticized by the Bush administration as ill-timed and improper, followed by charges/counter-charges as to whether he was asked by the administration not to go.
Subsequently, President Bush went to Israel to participate in the celebration of their 60th year as a nation. Instead of playing the true positive statesman/presidential role, he instead appallingly took the low road; he pandered to that local audience by calling people who would talk to terrorists and enemies of Israel as akin to “the appeasers who talked to Hitler, leading to tanks rolling into Poland” in 1939. As is typical with this President, disagreeing with his views equates to being a traitor to freedom and our country’s well being. His words and performance were deservingly outrageous to all who seek genuine peace and an equitable resolution to these most difficult problems.
Never mind that his Secretary of Defense recently said that talking to these same people was ultimately going to have to happen. Or that John McCain (notwithstanding his sad continuing quest to be “politically right” rather than principled) echoed Bush, ignoring that McCain had already previously acknowledged that Hamas et al were “the new reality” that we had to recognize and deal with. And all of these words of refusal to talk to Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah ignored the reality of our current talks with Korea after years of silence ― talks that have been the only cause of some movement and progress by Korea, however slight.
Then, to top it all off, yesterday it was announced that Israel and Syria have already been conducting secret peace talks using Turkish mediators, “with a goal of reaching a comprehensive peace.” The U.S. was nowhere to be seen in this announcement. The very audience that Bush played to with his appeasement labeling was the same audience already talking to an audience “undeserving” of conversation with us!
Northern Ireland has had 10 years of peace, however tentative, because the “ruling party” finally sat down with “the terrorists” and gradually inched their way to trust ― combined with the mothers of Northern Ireland marching to say “no more.” South Africa ended years of racial apartheid and minority oppression when government and rebel leaders sat at the table, overcoming their long hatred, and took a chance with each other. Begin and Sadat finally said “it is time for a change,” and Israel / Egypt / Jordan have had 30 years of relative peace with each other. Progress in relationships, for countries and with individuals, does not come from silent isolation or from punishment for being bad.
Yet George Bush and his people continue to preach “hate my enemies” rather than “find common peace with my enemies.” Yet as was recently said to me, “If Bush was a president with a sound foreign policy then we would not be in the mess we're in. Taking Bush's foreign policy advice is akin to asking a blind man to lead a sight-seeing tour.” Or as the Governor of Ohio said, “who is even listening to this man anymore?”
Neville Chamberlain’s mistake as Prime Minister of Great Britain was not in talking to Hitler; it was what he said to him. Chamberlain gave Hitler the belief that England would not defend its neighbors, that it sought peace at any price. So Hitler took the apparent invitation and marched out believing there would be no consequences to his actions, no resulting war. It took Winston Churchill to correct that critical misunderstanding. Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah will not act out of fear of America, nor will they respond to our attempted punishments. Neither will Russia, or most any other nation. We have nothing to fear from talking, except perhaps fear of talking succeeding. That is one risk we should take.
“You don’t negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with the person you regard as your enemy.” Such a simple lesson.
A few weeks ago, former president Jimmy Carter scheduled meetings with Palestinian Hamas leaders in Gaza, and with leaders of Syria. He sought to continue his quest to try to bring some resolution in the Israel / Palestinian / Middle East dilemma. The effort was based upon his belief that no progress will be made without recognizing the reality of the role and influence that these players have, whether we may like it or not. His efforts were predictably criticized by the Bush administration as ill-timed and improper, followed by charges/counter-charges as to whether he was asked by the administration not to go.
Subsequently, President Bush went to Israel to participate in the celebration of their 60th year as a nation. Instead of playing the true positive statesman/presidential role, he instead appallingly took the low road; he pandered to that local audience by calling people who would talk to terrorists and enemies of Israel as akin to “the appeasers who talked to Hitler, leading to tanks rolling into Poland” in 1939. As is typical with this President, disagreeing with his views equates to being a traitor to freedom and our country’s well being. His words and performance were deservingly outrageous to all who seek genuine peace and an equitable resolution to these most difficult problems.
Never mind that his Secretary of Defense recently said that talking to these same people was ultimately going to have to happen. Or that John McCain (notwithstanding his sad continuing quest to be “politically right” rather than principled) echoed Bush, ignoring that McCain had already previously acknowledged that Hamas et al were “the new reality” that we had to recognize and deal with. And all of these words of refusal to talk to Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah ignored the reality of our current talks with Korea after years of silence ― talks that have been the only cause of some movement and progress by Korea, however slight.
Then, to top it all off, yesterday it was announced that Israel and Syria have already been conducting secret peace talks using Turkish mediators, “with a goal of reaching a comprehensive peace.” The U.S. was nowhere to be seen in this announcement. The very audience that Bush played to with his appeasement labeling was the same audience already talking to an audience “undeserving” of conversation with us!
Northern Ireland has had 10 years of peace, however tentative, because the “ruling party” finally sat down with “the terrorists” and gradually inched their way to trust ― combined with the mothers of Northern Ireland marching to say “no more.” South Africa ended years of racial apartheid and minority oppression when government and rebel leaders sat at the table, overcoming their long hatred, and took a chance with each other. Begin and Sadat finally said “it is time for a change,” and Israel / Egypt / Jordan have had 30 years of relative peace with each other. Progress in relationships, for countries and with individuals, does not come from silent isolation or from punishment for being bad.
Yet George Bush and his people continue to preach “hate my enemies” rather than “find common peace with my enemies.” Yet as was recently said to me, “If Bush was a president with a sound foreign policy then we would not be in the mess we're in. Taking Bush's foreign policy advice is akin to asking a blind man to lead a sight-seeing tour.” Or as the Governor of Ohio said, “who is even listening to this man anymore?”
Neville Chamberlain’s mistake as Prime Minister of Great Britain was not in talking to Hitler; it was what he said to him. Chamberlain gave Hitler the belief that England would not defend its neighbors, that it sought peace at any price. So Hitler took the apparent invitation and marched out believing there would be no consequences to his actions, no resulting war. It took Winston Churchill to correct that critical misunderstanding. Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah will not act out of fear of America, nor will they respond to our attempted punishments. Neither will Russia, or most any other nation. We have nothing to fear from talking, except perhaps fear of talking succeeding. That is one risk we should take.
“You don’t negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with the person you regard as your enemy.” Such a simple lesson.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Wright Stuff
I recently experienced a clear demonstration of the significant shortcomings of the national press media in America. For weeks, we had been exposed to film bites of pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright enthusiastically condemning the United States for its shortcomings, including his use of the singular phrase “America be damned.” All of which would have gone by without notice EXCEPT that Dr. Wright just happens to be the pastor of presidential candidate Barack Obama.
These excerpted statements by Dr. Wright led to never-ending headline ravings by the national news speakers and opinion-givers, all of whom never met a headline controversy they are willing to either explore in depth or let die. Finally, a clearly wounded Dr. Wright decided to fight back to try to redeem his injured reputation.
The medium he chose for this counter-offensive was PBS’s interview show with Bill Moyers, one of a handful of national journalists that I respect for their thoughtfulness and thoroughness. What emerged from that hour’s quiet conversation and respectful verbal investigation was a totally different Jeremiah Wright. Thoughtful, very well read and educated, rational, with deeply reasoned messages that he carefully explained. A person with a background of patriotic military service to his country, who had taken a small church in Chicago’s difficult South Side and built a commendable record of growth and support to his community. I ended watching this in-depth discussion with an acute re-appreciation for how little real “information” we receive from the ratings-driven snippets that pass for news in this country. So many people draw conclusions about their fellow human beings from such snippets of words and opinions that have so little context of explanation.
Unfortunately, having made such a positive turn of impression with Bill Moyers, for some inexplicable reason Dr. Wright then proceeded to undo all that he had gained. In an appearance at the Washington Press Club --- televised by several news networks almost in its entirety --- he opted to put on a performance that was a looney-tune caricature of himself. He descended into new race-divisive and unsupportable statements in stark contrast with his reasoned comments in his individual interview, thereby reaffirming the worst criticisms of him. Feeling his oats? Long on adrenalin? Focused on his own ego, his own selfishness while on center stage? Who knows, but it was a grievous and unfortunate error, undermining the case statement for himself he made on PBS. Yet his human frailty and would-be martyrdom of that moment still did not weaken criticizing the news media for creating and continuing much of this would-be controversy in the first place.
The unfortunate thing in this follow-up event was the negative spillover on the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent concern for his parishioner, but also on the larger issues of race relations and spiritual goals. The angers of the Jeremiah Wrights and Al Sharptons and their generation are more than understandable. But these spokespersons undermine their arguments and their objectives by their words. Problems are rarely solved from hate and anger, and ultimately progress will only come when we focus on right for right’s sake, not right for guilt’s sake. Anger and hatred are separating forces, not unifying ones. So Obama was forced to follow in the footsteps of John Kennedy, Mitt Romney and others to explain how as president he would separate his actions in that secular office, responsible to all stripes of Americans, from his personal religious obligations to his church and church leaders. Maybe this is a question every presidential candidate should grapple with and answer, hopefully with the opportunity to do so in a quieter less public arena. Maybe such questioning and understanding is ultimately the real and only gift of this whole Jeremiah Wright episode.
These excerpted statements by Dr. Wright led to never-ending headline ravings by the national news speakers and opinion-givers, all of whom never met a headline controversy they are willing to either explore in depth or let die. Finally, a clearly wounded Dr. Wright decided to fight back to try to redeem his injured reputation.
The medium he chose for this counter-offensive was PBS’s interview show with Bill Moyers, one of a handful of national journalists that I respect for their thoughtfulness and thoroughness. What emerged from that hour’s quiet conversation and respectful verbal investigation was a totally different Jeremiah Wright. Thoughtful, very well read and educated, rational, with deeply reasoned messages that he carefully explained. A person with a background of patriotic military service to his country, who had taken a small church in Chicago’s difficult South Side and built a commendable record of growth and support to his community. I ended watching this in-depth discussion with an acute re-appreciation for how little real “information” we receive from the ratings-driven snippets that pass for news in this country. So many people draw conclusions about their fellow human beings from such snippets of words and opinions that have so little context of explanation.
Unfortunately, having made such a positive turn of impression with Bill Moyers, for some inexplicable reason Dr. Wright then proceeded to undo all that he had gained. In an appearance at the Washington Press Club --- televised by several news networks almost in its entirety --- he opted to put on a performance that was a looney-tune caricature of himself. He descended into new race-divisive and unsupportable statements in stark contrast with his reasoned comments in his individual interview, thereby reaffirming the worst criticisms of him. Feeling his oats? Long on adrenalin? Focused on his own ego, his own selfishness while on center stage? Who knows, but it was a grievous and unfortunate error, undermining the case statement for himself he made on PBS. Yet his human frailty and would-be martyrdom of that moment still did not weaken criticizing the news media for creating and continuing much of this would-be controversy in the first place.
The unfortunate thing in this follow-up event was the negative spillover on the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent concern for his parishioner, but also on the larger issues of race relations and spiritual goals. The angers of the Jeremiah Wrights and Al Sharptons and their generation are more than understandable. But these spokespersons undermine their arguments and their objectives by their words. Problems are rarely solved from hate and anger, and ultimately progress will only come when we focus on right for right’s sake, not right for guilt’s sake. Anger and hatred are separating forces, not unifying ones. So Obama was forced to follow in the footsteps of John Kennedy, Mitt Romney and others to explain how as president he would separate his actions in that secular office, responsible to all stripes of Americans, from his personal religious obligations to his church and church leaders. Maybe this is a question every presidential candidate should grapple with and answer, hopefully with the opportunity to do so in a quieter less public arena. Maybe such questioning and understanding is ultimately the real and only gift of this whole Jeremiah Wright episode.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The Surge of Illusion
Up until a month ago, President Bush and his spokespeople were pronouncing “The Surge” of American troops into Iran over this past year “a success.” The proof: Iraqi and American death statistics during this period have been down cumulatively. Less deaths = more success. That was the yardstick.
Then, Premier al-Maliki (our staunch ally?) unilaterally decided to play Iraqi macho-man. With no consultation or notice to American troop leaders, he decided to storm into Basra and Sadr City to disarm Shiite militiamen and bring those areas under central government control. His tool for this ill-planned endeavor was the much-heralded “new Iraqi army,” a principal multi-year focus of our $25B security force building project. From this incursion, Iraqi killing spiked yet again. In his best Bush-speak, we were now told that “increased violence shows the success of the surge and our efforts, because it demonstrates the Iraqi government’s willingness and ability to enforce security within the country.” Violence is Progress! What?
Except the funniest thing happened on the way to Basra. Many Shiite army and police force members deserted, unwilling to attack their kindred. Moreover, the militiamen defended themselves well. The Iraqi army ― they who are supposed to “stand up so we can stand down” ― blew it, unable to win the battle and disarm the militiamen. The un-consulted US had to be brought in after the fact to provide air power and weaponry to protect the Iraqi army stuck in their tracks. The army stalled, objective un-won. And we had to create a spin to make it all sound OK.
The objective was for a well-equipped and organized “army” to overpower and eliminate the cleric al-Sadr’s street militia. To remove a powerbase threat to the installed Bagdad government. But the fighting stopped only when al-Maliki made a pitch to Iran’s leaders to intercede in the conflict (which they happily did) and when al-Sadr (not the official government) offered to institute a truce. Only winners can declare a truce, not losers; the fighting stopped only because al-Sadr decreed it.
The whole exercise eerily resembled Israel’s incursion into Lebanon awhile back. A dominant military force invaded to disarm and neutralize a loose street militia, only to be ground down and neutralized itself. Thereby diminishing Israeli prowess and dispelling the aura of invincibility that is in itself a key to its defense. As a result, legitimacy and authority was given to the very force Israel set out to destroy. Lebanon has been stuck with and paralyzed ever since by political disruption from this new legitimized power within its border. Likely Iraq will now be similarly disrupted, forced to acknowledge openly that the real cardholder in Iraq is not the fantasy government in Bagdad. The real power is al-Sadr and the other tribal chieftains. Saddam Hussein understood that there is no natural indigenous “country” of Iraq; it existed only through the brute force of his terror towards the people themselves. (See also the People’s Republic of China.)
So General Petraeus continues to masterfully try to fight a war that will ultimately destroy him. He marches up to Capital Hill for his latest briefing to Congress, a report essentially pre-scripted by the word signals already issued by Bush/Cheney. He says, in words / pictures / graphs, “the surge has been a success.” But we can’t leave because it would all fall apart. And if we stay, “the gains are all very fragile” and could disappear in a flash. We lose whichever way we go. This is not how most of us would define “success.”
Violence in Iraq has been reduced not because of The Surge provided by our young military men and women. It is down because al-Sadr and other chieftains have opted to pull back and protect their resources and turfs, expel the al-Qaida outsiders who threaten their control, and then bide their time waiting for their moment to come. The outcome of Iraq is not in our hands. Nor is it in the hands of the illusionary government in Bagdad ― an empty empire with a king who has been shown to wear no regal clothes.
Yet just after general Petraeus’s testimony, Bush-speak says that we are witnessing a “brilliant turnaround” in Iraq. Have the garden’s rose bushes completely covered the windows of the White House? Through what bizarre colored lens does this President see? And is anyone listening to him anymore? The only “brilliance” that I can see is the decision to “turnaround” and come home. Let be what is ultimately going to be anyway.
Then, Premier al-Maliki (our staunch ally?) unilaterally decided to play Iraqi macho-man. With no consultation or notice to American troop leaders, he decided to storm into Basra and Sadr City to disarm Shiite militiamen and bring those areas under central government control. His tool for this ill-planned endeavor was the much-heralded “new Iraqi army,” a principal multi-year focus of our $25B security force building project. From this incursion, Iraqi killing spiked yet again. In his best Bush-speak, we were now told that “increased violence shows the success of the surge and our efforts, because it demonstrates the Iraqi government’s willingness and ability to enforce security within the country.” Violence is Progress! What?
Except the funniest thing happened on the way to Basra. Many Shiite army and police force members deserted, unwilling to attack their kindred. Moreover, the militiamen defended themselves well. The Iraqi army ― they who are supposed to “stand up so we can stand down” ― blew it, unable to win the battle and disarm the militiamen. The un-consulted US had to be brought in after the fact to provide air power and weaponry to protect the Iraqi army stuck in their tracks. The army stalled, objective un-won. And we had to create a spin to make it all sound OK.
The objective was for a well-equipped and organized “army” to overpower and eliminate the cleric al-Sadr’s street militia. To remove a powerbase threat to the installed Bagdad government. But the fighting stopped only when al-Maliki made a pitch to Iran’s leaders to intercede in the conflict (which they happily did) and when al-Sadr (not the official government) offered to institute a truce. Only winners can declare a truce, not losers; the fighting stopped only because al-Sadr decreed it.
The whole exercise eerily resembled Israel’s incursion into Lebanon awhile back. A dominant military force invaded to disarm and neutralize a loose street militia, only to be ground down and neutralized itself. Thereby diminishing Israeli prowess and dispelling the aura of invincibility that is in itself a key to its defense. As a result, legitimacy and authority was given to the very force Israel set out to destroy. Lebanon has been stuck with and paralyzed ever since by political disruption from this new legitimized power within its border. Likely Iraq will now be similarly disrupted, forced to acknowledge openly that the real cardholder in Iraq is not the fantasy government in Bagdad. The real power is al-Sadr and the other tribal chieftains. Saddam Hussein understood that there is no natural indigenous “country” of Iraq; it existed only through the brute force of his terror towards the people themselves. (See also the People’s Republic of China.)
So General Petraeus continues to masterfully try to fight a war that will ultimately destroy him. He marches up to Capital Hill for his latest briefing to Congress, a report essentially pre-scripted by the word signals already issued by Bush/Cheney. He says, in words / pictures / graphs, “the surge has been a success.” But we can’t leave because it would all fall apart. And if we stay, “the gains are all very fragile” and could disappear in a flash. We lose whichever way we go. This is not how most of us would define “success.”
Violence in Iraq has been reduced not because of The Surge provided by our young military men and women. It is down because al-Sadr and other chieftains have opted to pull back and protect their resources and turfs, expel the al-Qaida outsiders who threaten their control, and then bide their time waiting for their moment to come. The outcome of Iraq is not in our hands. Nor is it in the hands of the illusionary government in Bagdad ― an empty empire with a king who has been shown to wear no regal clothes.
Yet just after general Petraeus’s testimony, Bush-speak says that we are witnessing a “brilliant turnaround” in Iraq. Have the garden’s rose bushes completely covered the windows of the White House? Through what bizarre colored lens does this President see? And is anyone listening to him anymore? The only “brilliance” that I can see is the decision to “turnaround” and come home. Let be what is ultimately going to be anyway.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Tibet Genocide
Yesterday, I sent the following email individually to President Bush, my two U.S. Senators, and my U.S. Representative:
“Regarding the current events in Tibet: Last Fall the US government awarded the Dalai Lama a medal, amid a great ceremony of recognition. Now, when a strong voice is needed about what China is doing to the people of Tibet, our executive branch is virtually silent. Where is our unified statement of moral outrage? Where is our pro-democracy evangelism now? This is a uniting issue for both Democrats and Republicans. I urge our government to speak up forcibly to stop this continuing shameless cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
In our current political environment where public relations and photo ops substitute for actions of substance, our failure to make an unequivocal public statement about Chinese leaders' actions in Tibet is deplorable. A few individual Congress-people have spoken up. Yet President Bush's only statement on the subject through his spokeswoman is that he "will not cancel his planned trip to the Olympics in August." Condoleeza Rice lamely offered that "we are certainly concerned about the situation in Tibet," and that she "hoped China would show restraint." Well, that strong State Department statement should certainly give Chinese leaders pause to be concerned (given that no such restraint has yet to be seen)!
We have certainly offered up noble statements about bringing democracy and self-determination to selected parts of the world --- most notably those places where we have vested oil interests or can claim politically self-promoting defenses against terrorist threats. If the Himalayan Mountains of Tibet were oil or mineral rich, would we have far more to say about what happens to it? It took Laura Bush to make the case against the oppression of Buddhist monks and civilians in Burma out of her genuine humanitarian concerns. Where was her husband during that similar pitiful situation?
Where there is no vested economic connection, it appears that we have no moral or humanitarian interest. We have become a junior partner in our trade with China. We have become a debtor nation, with China as our creditor, in order to finance our Iraq misadventure. We have become a hollow international voice because the world knows we are already beyond our capacities militarily and financially, and have no reservoir of trust and goodwill to draw from in our strained relationships with other countries.
I had the extreme pleasure of making a solo visit to Tibet in 1999. It was an incredible personal experience to meet these people, and to observe first-hand a culture stymied under China’s external political control. It was very sad to see the relegation of their culture to a "museum status" while being made-over into a Chinese facelift. We brought everything possible to bear to stop this kind of thing in the Balkans 10 years ago. Why not now?
It is easy to show up at the dinner, present the medal, pose for the pictures, and bask in the glow
of a true spiritual and moral leader who embodies the good of his people. Today, when our collective voice is most needed, we sit silent.
“Regarding the current events in Tibet: Last Fall the US government awarded the Dalai Lama a medal, amid a great ceremony of recognition. Now, when a strong voice is needed about what China is doing to the people of Tibet, our executive branch is virtually silent. Where is our unified statement of moral outrage? Where is our pro-democracy evangelism now? This is a uniting issue for both Democrats and Republicans. I urge our government to speak up forcibly to stop this continuing shameless cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
In our current political environment where public relations and photo ops substitute for actions of substance, our failure to make an unequivocal public statement about Chinese leaders' actions in Tibet is deplorable. A few individual Congress-people have spoken up. Yet President Bush's only statement on the subject through his spokeswoman is that he "will not cancel his planned trip to the Olympics in August." Condoleeza Rice lamely offered that "we are certainly concerned about the situation in Tibet," and that she "hoped China would show restraint." Well, that strong State Department statement should certainly give Chinese leaders pause to be concerned (given that no such restraint has yet to be seen)!
We have certainly offered up noble statements about bringing democracy and self-determination to selected parts of the world --- most notably those places where we have vested oil interests or can claim politically self-promoting defenses against terrorist threats. If the Himalayan Mountains of Tibet were oil or mineral rich, would we have far more to say about what happens to it? It took Laura Bush to make the case against the oppression of Buddhist monks and civilians in Burma out of her genuine humanitarian concerns. Where was her husband during that similar pitiful situation?
Where there is no vested economic connection, it appears that we have no moral or humanitarian interest. We have become a junior partner in our trade with China. We have become a debtor nation, with China as our creditor, in order to finance our Iraq misadventure. We have become a hollow international voice because the world knows we are already beyond our capacities militarily and financially, and have no reservoir of trust and goodwill to draw from in our strained relationships with other countries.
I had the extreme pleasure of making a solo visit to Tibet in 1999. It was an incredible personal experience to meet these people, and to observe first-hand a culture stymied under China’s external political control. It was very sad to see the relegation of their culture to a "museum status" while being made-over into a Chinese facelift. We brought everything possible to bear to stop this kind of thing in the Balkans 10 years ago. Why not now?
It is easy to show up at the dinner, present the medal, pose for the pictures, and bask in the glow
of a true spiritual and moral leader who embodies the good of his people. Today, when our collective voice is most needed, we sit silent.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Religous Test
The other night, I sat down and read anew the Constitution of the United States and its several amendments. I recommend such an exercise to everyone on some periodic basis (for example, www.usconstitution.net). Such a reading provides a good opportunity to refresh ourselves as to the original thinking, priorities, fears, and experiences that our Founding Fathers drew from in writing this fabulous document. Much of what is there would come as a profound shock to the Religious Right and neo-conservatives who continually shout about needing “strict constructionist judges who will “not make laws from the bench but will interpret the Constitution literally.” Because the Constitution ― and the Founding Fathers actions and statement at the time ― rarely support their pet concerns.
One major observation in my re-reading was that the word “God” exists nowhere in that document. Indeed, the closest one might get to that is the one instance of the word “Lord,” and that is only there in the context of defining the acceptance date of the document by the Constitutional Convention as the “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” Hardly a ringing marriage between our country and government and God; certainly a far cry from constituting America as a Christian Theocracy as some self-appointed spokespersons would claim. Further, the only two references to religion at all in the Constitution are in the negative:
· Article VI: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
· Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
Pretty clear one thing they were worried about in 1787, huh?
Yet here we now are in the presidential election of 2008. The would-be election of the head of the American Church of State, if some would have their way. Just as with the Queen of England, who also serves as the head of the Church of England (Anglican Church) and with whom we fought a war to be free of such an investment of Church + State power. As some seek to declare a national religion for America, so apparently we must now also inaugurate a Presidential Pastor.
So we have seen:
· John McCain saying and acting in various ways to cozy up to newfound relationships with Religious Right people previously held at arm’s length disdain. None of it done too convincingly; as they say, “that dog just don’t hunt.” Cancel both principle and credibility.
· Mitt Romney, awkwardly trying to take a page from John Kennedy’s playbook with a “Pastor’s Meeting In Houston” to explain (diffuse) his Mormonism. Except that he only said the word Mormon once; he staged it within a blatant Madison Avenue marketing backdrop at the G.H.W.Bush library; he took no questions; he made a speech and left. Could have phoned it in. As was said about a prior Vice President, “[Mitt], you are no Jack Kennedy.”
· Mike Huckabee, the most avowed pastor-candidate, but failing to get much beyond the 30% vote that the Religious Right minority represents in national Republican party politics;
· Barack Obama, having to defend himself against unfounded gossip charges that he is secretly a Moslem, and having to prove his Protestant church history and membership;
· Hillary Clinton, against her desires and sense of good taste, being forced to discuss her Methodist upbringing, and how her religious faith and counsel from Rev. Billy Graham brought her through the trials of “life with Bill.”
All 20-odd presidential candidates this year have had to make some declaration of religious faith and affiliation in order to be a viable candidate. This in spite of our wise Constitutional prohibition that “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Romney having to defend his Mormonism was a low point this year; Obama’s need to prove that he is not a Moslem is a similar travesty― and so what difference would it make if he was, except to the bigots for whom Islam = Terrorist = Kill America. And what will we do when a Jew is finally elected President: how will she conduct the annual Christmas Tree lighting service, and to whom will he send the White House Christmas Cards?
I frankly agree with all those who say “Go back to the Constitution.” But some should be careful what they ask for. That Constitution tells us explicitly to “butt out!”
One major observation in my re-reading was that the word “God” exists nowhere in that document. Indeed, the closest one might get to that is the one instance of the word “Lord,” and that is only there in the context of defining the acceptance date of the document by the Constitutional Convention as the “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” Hardly a ringing marriage between our country and government and God; certainly a far cry from constituting America as a Christian Theocracy as some self-appointed spokespersons would claim. Further, the only two references to religion at all in the Constitution are in the negative:
· Article VI: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
· Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
Pretty clear one thing they were worried about in 1787, huh?
Yet here we now are in the presidential election of 2008. The would-be election of the head of the American Church of State, if some would have their way. Just as with the Queen of England, who also serves as the head of the Church of England (Anglican Church) and with whom we fought a war to be free of such an investment of Church + State power. As some seek to declare a national religion for America, so apparently we must now also inaugurate a Presidential Pastor.
So we have seen:
· John McCain saying and acting in various ways to cozy up to newfound relationships with Religious Right people previously held at arm’s length disdain. None of it done too convincingly; as they say, “that dog just don’t hunt.” Cancel both principle and credibility.
· Mitt Romney, awkwardly trying to take a page from John Kennedy’s playbook with a “Pastor’s Meeting In Houston” to explain (diffuse) his Mormonism. Except that he only said the word Mormon once; he staged it within a blatant Madison Avenue marketing backdrop at the G.H.W.Bush library; he took no questions; he made a speech and left. Could have phoned it in. As was said about a prior Vice President, “[Mitt], you are no Jack Kennedy.”
· Mike Huckabee, the most avowed pastor-candidate, but failing to get much beyond the 30% vote that the Religious Right minority represents in national Republican party politics;
· Barack Obama, having to defend himself against unfounded gossip charges that he is secretly a Moslem, and having to prove his Protestant church history and membership;
· Hillary Clinton, against her desires and sense of good taste, being forced to discuss her Methodist upbringing, and how her religious faith and counsel from Rev. Billy Graham brought her through the trials of “life with Bill.”
All 20-odd presidential candidates this year have had to make some declaration of religious faith and affiliation in order to be a viable candidate. This in spite of our wise Constitutional prohibition that “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Romney having to defend his Mormonism was a low point this year; Obama’s need to prove that he is not a Moslem is a similar travesty― and so what difference would it make if he was, except to the bigots for whom Islam = Terrorist = Kill America. And what will we do when a Jew is finally elected President: how will she conduct the annual Christmas Tree lighting service, and to whom will he send the White House Christmas Cards?
I frankly agree with all those who say “Go back to the Constitution.” But some should be careful what they ask for. That Constitution tells us explicitly to “butt out!”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)