Perhaps this is why I’m skeptical about extreme language from either side. Empathy is difficult enough without assuming the worst of others. Graphic posters of dismembered fetuses or baby strollers splashed with fake blood don’t help people understand each other. Neither does calling opponents of abortion “right wing nuts who are in a full-blown panic over the fact that they don’t have a legal right to control and punish women who have unapproved sex lives.” Maybe this sort of thing energizes the base, but it doesn’t build any bridges.
favorite line: “One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-ass club, in this building when the President stands, nobody sits.” - President Josiah Bartlet
The West Wing is one of my favorite TV shows. The dialogue is so unbelievably well-written, the characters (on both sides of the political aisle) presented with humanity as imperfect people, and it had a unique ability to make policy wonkishness entertaining and engaging. But in this scene Aaron Sorkin really grinds his axe against Christianity: it’s brutal, scathing, mean, unfair, and totally unlike the majority of the show. It was this scene—and the one ending Season 2 where the president chews out God in the cathedral—that left a sour taste in my mouth.
I try to avoid using Jesus too much in political debate, though I know I fail at that sometimes. This is not to say that my Christian faith does not inform my political opinions, because my faith in God should be the utmost definer of my worldview, though I readily admit I am often a failure as a Christian. No, the reason I tend to dislike using Christ in political debate is twofold. First, he said himself that his kingdom is not of this world. As such, he sought not to inspire change through political activism, but through personal transformation - though that transformation and reformation is not intended to stay personal, but to enact global change.
Secondly, and tangentially, people’s use of Christ in politics so often misses the point. Communalism is not the same as communism; charity is not the same as redistribution. One might argue that the modern church should be more like the first century church, sharing in everything, but that is not an argument for why American or other governments should be more like the first century church. One might argue the American Christians should give more to those in need, but that is not an argument for why the American government should increase social welfare programming.
I don’t think Christ would or should be called a socialist, whether supposedly in this comic or intentionally as do some on the left. Christ calls people to radically change through his work, his power, his grace, and his mercy. It is outside of the political system; as such, I am always wary of those who attempt to force him into the middle of it.
very well said. both sides use Jesus to get people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. the irony is that those looking for the messiah in Jesus’ day were all expecting a political leader & Jesus was explicitly & unarguably not that.
Though I may pay greatly from the powers that be for saying this, not much would’ve changed for Christians if McCain had been elected, nor have things changed for Christians since Obama was elected. Again, for the sake of bluntness, we had a very devout Christian in office for 8 years. His name, if you’ll recall, was George W. Bush. What happened? Did abortions end? Was there an official constitutional ban on homosexuality? No… instead we just ended up in two wars, where, ironically, we sent 40,000 Iraqi E. Catholics into exile. In America we suffer from what Howard Zinn calls “historical amnesia.” Because we are so prone to forgetfulness, American Christians won’t see any real change in this country until they realize that “exceptionalism” is a sin.
A fascinating article, and one that I (partially) agree with. While there are certain excesses of American Exceptionalism, I don’t see it as quite the inherent problem that Wheeler-Reed does. Also, I think he conflates the use of flowery and inspirational (and indeed, often correct) “city on a hill”-type language with a theological problem. I discount his assertion that patriotic Americans employing such language indicates idolatry simply because Jerusalem was the “original” city on a hill. However, he does have some points about American Christianity:
Nothing makes us US Christians better because we are Americans, and nothing gives us the right to think that we American Christians are better than Iraqi Christians.
This is what’s wrong with the Democratic Party’s collectivist approach to race. They cannot see that members of a racial minority aren’t defined solely by their race. They cannot understand that we don’t all share the same goals and views. They view you as part of a homogeneous group and strip you of your individuality.
And good luck trying to explain to them how and why a minority member could possibly be a non-Democrat.
Rachel Maddow vs Pat Buchanan: The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court.
Rachel Maddow, on her show, thus far has stayed away from lively and heated debates. I understand it, and I respect her for steering her show and herself personally away from a seemingly easy way to garner attention/ratings. But she is especially good at it so therefore I wish she would do more. During MSNBC’s campaign coverage there were times when she would mix it up with panelists on the other side of the political spectrum and she would always hold her own. Honestly most times she would make fools of her counter parts.
She uses a unique combo of coolness and articulation. She tops anyone that I can recall at this and I am going back to the beginning of what some might call, “debate TV”. Even harking back to the old Bob Novak vs Michael Kinsely or Pat Buchanan vs Bill Press CNN “Crossfire” days.
Maddow’s calm and reasoned thinking absolutely pwns Buchanan’s emotional outbursts and seemingly ingrained prejudices. Here are some of quotes from this nearly 11 minute debate:
Buchanan: She, Sotomayor, is nothing but an ”affirmative-action appointment”.
Buchanan: “Whites are the ones being discriminated against”.
“I think white men were 100% of the people who wrote the constitution, 100% of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country basically built by white folks.”…”You know what they ought to do? They ought to defend the rights of white working-class folks.”
Maddow told Buchanan, ”I don’t need a lecture from you”..
Buchanan spoke over her telling her, “Yes, you do. You do.”
Maddow continued: “a lot of things divide us Pat, for you to privilege race and say that what we really need to do is make sure that we tap into white people’s racial grievances, you’re dating yourself and playing with fire.”
A few thoughts: I like Rachel. She keeps a friendly tone and avoids a confrontational shouting match. She listens closely to her guest, and asks penetrating questions. That being said, she completely misunderstands Robertson’s Buchanan’s essential argument, losing it amidst some of his more whacky points—for example, that 100% of those who wrote and signed the Constitution where white (this matters why?).
I am not generally a fan of Robertson Buchanan, but I agree with his point: namely, that the pool of intellectual and judiciants considered for a post on the Supreme Court should be color blind—essentially agreeing with Rachel that all should be considered, not just white men, and that this is progress—but that the selection should be race-neutral as well.
Robertson Buchanan argues that Sotomayor is not qualified based on her intellectual merits and that she was picked because of her race. I disagree on the first point and agree on the second. Sotomayor is likely qualified enough to serve on the Court, even though I think she’s made some idiotic decisions. Yet I think she was chosen primarily because of her race, and I have a problem with that.
Should she be confirmed? Yes. Obama won the election and his pick is technically qualified? Should she have been nominated in the first place. Nah. But it’s too late to fix that now.
[Amanda] Marcotte, you might know, is kind of a deal on the left-liberal side of the blogosphere. And she is completely unhinged by rage. She’s like Mark Levin, only with a filthy mouth, and not as intelligent. I read that thing through twice, and the first time I thought, sarcastically, “Boy, she must brighten up any garden party she attends.” But then I thought that this kind of thing is a big reason why I’ve lost interest in politics. Conor and I got into it with Mark Levin a few weeks back, and while he is a veritable Disraeli compared to Marcotte, the shtick is the same: the politics of rage. Find the Enemy, excoriate them, and encourage others to see the (political) world through the same distorting lens of rage. Lather, rinse, repeat.
—
Rod Dreher. Exactly. The predictability of it is mind-numbing. (via ayjay)
Dreher continues:
I do encounter the occasional right-wing version of same. They want to talk about Obama, and they talk about him as if he were two tics away from the Antichrist. The lack of proportion is what’s so striking. I get that they don’t like him or his policies, and are dedicated to opposing him. Fine, good luck to you. But what I can’t put my finger on is why they take him for such a monster (and I do not exaggerate). I’m afraid I don’t have anything useful to say to someone who believes the president to be a socialist Snidely Whiplash and/or a Muslim Manchurian candidate. During the later Bush years, I’d run into lefties who felt that way about Dubya, and while I certainly — and publicly, in my writing — had more than had it with him as a politician, the deranged conviction that he was some sort of monster made it impossible to have a normal, analytical conversation with some people. So you just sort of nod your head, and extricate yourself from the situation as soon as you can. I do that these days with some conservatives who make it clear that they are so filled with fear and loathing toward Obama that they really have nothing interesting to say about him.
