Presidential Heritages

One person’s opinions of presidential heritages in his lifetime.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I don’t actively remember him as I was born during his presidency. But he is in my working memory as a student of history and we have the memories of our parent and grandparents. To took charge of country that was in deep trouble, the Great Depression and make hard, difficult and unpopular decisions that got the country working and prosperous again. We need his principles again today and we have the same wealth distribution he faced. Oh yes, he led us during, again in my opinion, the last justified war we fought. It is important to note that the media in his day went out of their way not to show his polio informative, a condition that had little or no affect on his ability to do the work of his office. I think of it as responsible media coverage with a heart.

Dwight Eisenhower. He was a nice guy and a good leader whose election indicated the American public prefers non intellectual appearing leaders. He played a lot of golf, prophetically warned of the danger of the military industrial complex but lacked the intellect of his opponent Adlai Stevenson (that does not mean he was stupid, he was smart). He falls in the line of the predilection this country has for elected war heroes and leaders. Again, one of his great foresights was seeing the need of building a strong infrastructure than would benefit the country and began that in the building of the interstate roads. Unfortunately his successors failed to follow up on his lead.

Harry S. Truman. He is the man who took over responsibilities of the office when FDR died. He is likely best known for dropping the atom bombs on Japan, which effectively ended the war. It also made us known at the only country that ever did such a horrendous act. He seem to rise to the leadership of office required at the time and coined the phrase, “the buck stops here.” He reminds me in a way of Indira Gandhi, who recognized as she rose to the challenge being Prime Ministry in India and gained her abilities as needed when she assumed the office.

John F. Kennedy. I see Kennedy as a man who had the vision to inspire a country. It was also a non stuffy intellect. His book, Profiles in Courage should be one of those required readings for politicians and voters as to the true purpose of leadership; to be persons of courage who live by their principles despite political cost. He also is likely the last president who personal life peccadilloes were not reported by the media at the time, when the media stuck to hard news rather than tabloid type material.

Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson was known for his ability to work with his colleagues in getting bills passed in congress. He was also known for driving like a maniac on Texas roads. The unpopular Vietnam War, the first to be shown on TV in citizens living rooms with all its gore; contributed greatly to his not running for second term in office following his Presidency after he succeeded John Kennedy’s death in office.

Richard Nixon. Despite his famous quote, “I’m not a crook” demeaned the white house and disgraced the country and who fed the concept that presidents were not subjects to the laws of the land. A man whose foreign policy accomplishments were far over shadowed by his lack of character and bringing the presidency to disgrace.

Gerald Ford. Had the unfortunate problem of following Nixon and though athletic become famous for falling down.

Jimmy Carter showed that we truly are a biblical illiterate country who neither supports nor affirms Christian principles as pragmatic or realistic. He is a man of tremendous personal character and leadership who his was not to taken seriously as he should have been. His greatest achievements seem to have taken place after his presidency in the area of peace making.

Ronald Reagan. In my opinion was the worst president of the 20^th-21^st century. He was a grade B actor known as the “great communication” who had difficulty with complex sentences let alone ideas. Somehow managed to convince a country that it could increase spending, lower taxes and that making rich people richer would make the rest of us better off economically. The concept is known as supply side economics and popularized by George Bush who called it Voodoo economics. He created the greatest ratio of debt ever in our country largely in military expenditures. He began as path that has led to the present which redistributed the wealth of the country to an elite few to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. Today it takes two incomes in a family to have the same standard of living a single income family had in his date. It is a failed economic policy that remains popular for reasons beyond my comprehension.

Bill Clinton. He may have proved you can be the brightest guy on the block and demean and embarrass the country through personal peccadilloes. Who also brought to the attention of the world that the media had changed from reported to serious subjects to the sensational. His presidency and he is still popular as he was the one who balanced the budget and put the economy of a firm foundation for a short period of time. A tremendous talent full of hubris and could have gone down in history as a far greater president had he possessed more personal character. He’s like the bad boy girls like to marry with the idea they can reform them.

George. W. Bush. Is a man who proved an intellectually limited could be elected president, who also could take positive world opinion (follow 9/11) and destroy it by his personal vindictiveness and manipulations of evil puppeteers, ie. Dick Cheney his vice president. His continuation of Reagonomics/supply side economics, increased the debt to a huge level. He funded a war by not asking the country to sacrifice but by borrowing from the Chinese making us a great debtor nation. His continuation of the deregulation of corporate and tax reductions and tax advantages for the wealthy Americans led to the Wall Street and major corporate crises and bailouts. His presidency lead to the concentration of wealth, more than half of it, being placed in the hands of the upper 1% of the upper 1%, 1,400 people, and the same level as it was at the Great Depression.

Barack Obama. This president likely became president during one of the most difficult times in American history. The economic structure was in shambles, the debt was sky-high, and politicians were seen as self-serving demons. He creatively used the internet to create a political fund that superseded the traditionally better funded Republican Party. He is a man of tremendous intellect, having a PhD in constitutional law and wrote a book on the par of John Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage, The Audacity of Hope, which shows a great understanding of this country and how it is possible to work together. Unfortunately, he became president at a time where it would have been next to impossible to please the populace and was consistently blamed for the errors of his presidential predecessor. He made history in becoming the first black president of the U.S.A. He also seems to be able to keep his good humor and positive stance in the midst of a very difficult presidency. His major mistakes I believe was extending the Iraqi war into Afghanistan and not being as forceful as necessary in promoting his ideas for economic recovery. He also is president at a time when congress lacks moderates which get things done. What he faces are entrenched opponents whose agenda is nothing other than to defeat him as president not matter what the costs to the country.

The Relevancy of Scripture

This is the morning psalm reading of today's daily lectionary. Draw your own conclusions. The translation is from Peterson's The Message

Psalm 12

A David psalm

¹Quick, God, I need your helping hand!

The last decent person just went down,

All the friends I depended on gone.

²Everyone talks in lie language;

Lies slide off their oily lips.

They doubletalk with forked tongues.

³Slice their lips off their faces! Pull

The braggart tongues from their mouths!

⁴I’m tired of hearing, “We can talk anyone into anything!

Our lips manage the world.”

⁵Into the hovels of the poor,

Into the dark streets where the homeless groan, God speaks:

“I’ve had enough; I’m on my way

To heal the ache in the heart of the wretched.”

⁶God’s words are pure words,

Pure silver words refined seven times

In the fires of his word-kiln,

Pure on earth as well as in heaven.

⁷God, keep us safe from their lies,

From the wicked who stalk us with lies,

⁸From the wicked who collect honors

For their wonderful lies.

Taxes: Punishment, Shared Burden, or Cause-and-Effect?

Awesome! Hugh just posed a question that gets to the very fundamental notion of people's idea of what a 'tax' even is, or what it should be. And it's something you could debate for a long time.

I'll cut to the chase: generally, my philosophy about taxes is that it should simply be a shared burden - based not so much on behavior but simply on ability to pay. The premise being, that there are some things that we simply have to have done and have a way to pay for.

Once we wade into the thicket of trying to use taxes as a sort of 'punishment' for some unseemly behavior, it gives strength to the whole mentality of thinking of taxes not as a shared burden but as a punishment for people the government hates. Then those against income tax, for example, can shout, "But you're punishing success!" and so on.

When you're talking corporate irresponsibility or malfeasance, I think you should simply rely on fines -- call it what it is, a monetary punishment is a fine. Not a tax. Where you have vast numbers of people affected, then perhaps the vehicle of class-action lawsuits is the best avenue.

I can see some cases for specific taxes being related to cause-and-effect rather than 'punishment' as such. For example, roads and gas taxes. One can make a case for funding some defense through gas taxes if we're fighting most of our wars to keep the oil-producing regions of the world safe, but it's harder when you get to second-order arguments like that.

I can see having fines structured progressively like you would a tax, simply to ensure that they would have the desired effect: a $10,000 fine that is steep for a small company but almost non-existent to a large one is utterly ineffective at its intended purpose. So you can make it proportional to profits, or to sales, or to event impact, but still I'd call it a fine, not a tax.

A PK Question

Readers of this blog have noted the comments the PK makes from time to time. I find them always insightful and helpful. They expand and clarify subjects I raise and gently correct things. One of the comments my friend PK made at one time was that we need to just get rid of corporation taxes as they are just passed on to consumers anyway. I hope I have that right. He convinced me that this was true, but I then reflected on a news article where a group of young people may be suffering from a toxic spill 47 years ago and Erin Brockovich is in the news again.

Here is my question. When companies are irresponsible or ignorant causing: automobiles to be recalled, children’s crib’s malfunctioning, oil spills and pollution, fracking issues, addiction to prescriptive medicine, gambling addictions stimulated by casinos, toxic spills, and a host of other things that cost the public money, should they, corporations, not be taxed to cover such contingencies?

Now I realize that many companies do cover these expenses when they occur but inevitably the government has to get involved to force them to do these things and to make sure they are carried out. This all takes tax dollars. And the problems are directly corporate related. Of course, the costs will be passed on to consumers. But somehow these costs seem inequitable in the application.

I hate raising issues where I don’t have a possible solution. But in this case I will as I believe my friend PK, or others, might have a reasonable response that I and others would like to hear.

Money Oligarchy Revisited

Recently dmarks criticized a line in one of my articles [What Is a Fair Tax/Politicians vs. Statesmen]: "They [the ultra rich, ed.] have literally bought the government turning into an oligarchy of the rich."

His response was “This sounds good on paper, but actually the rich pay the lions share of taxex, with the non-rich paying a small amount and the poor paying very little at all.

“There's simply no evidence of what you claim.”

I think Au contraire. Now it is absolutely true that rich folk pay more taxes the less rich folk. Almost half the country pays no taxes at all. But this is the way taxes are supposed to work. Those who have the means have the duty to pay taxes that work for the public good. Those who have problems putting food on the table, who lack discretionary income, just can’t pay taxes. But those with discretionary money can, and those with lots of discretionary money can give a lot. And, when this happens the whole country benefits included, perhaps especially the rich.

What is twisting our democracy out of proportion now and turning it into what I called an Oligarchy is that the rich have an undue influence in who gets elected in this country. That is what an oligarchy is.

I have added a new site to my home page, www.Billmoyers.com. He talks about this much better than I can, but let me offer some pieces to point out the truth of what I’m talking about.

First, we have all the PAC money that is used in elections that comes from the ultra rich. When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were persons, they opened the flood gate for these funds. Thus the ultra rich, like the Kock brothers and their buddies have an undue influence in the election process just because they can spend lots of money.

The second point I want to make it the influence of lobbyists in our country. These are hired primarily by corporations to influence congress in a way normal folk cannot. It is an undemocratic process that helps create a rich oligarchy. I read today that 30 companies pay more for lobbying than they pay in taxes.

Democracy is the idea that all of us are to have equal input into the election of our elected leaders. Just because you have a lot of money and can pay more taxes that others can does not mean you should have more say in the government; that is undemocratic.

The question is not do rich folk pay more taxes, they do, but does paying more taxes give them right to dominate the government? No.

With that said, dmarx, I don’t know who you are but I certainly appreciate your contributing to my blog; that is what this blog is for, civil debate of politics and religion.

Keeping Up with the Symths

Poverty is a slippery concept. In a household fitting poverty guidelines today you may see color TV’s, microwaves, cell phones, washing machines, even air conditioning and Xboxes and numerous others things that people in other countries would see as signs of opulence or even our ancestors would find mind boggling. When I was a kid I thought if I could make $5,000 year, which was just over what I made my first year of teachings, I would have a good life and if I could make $10,000 I would be fabulously rich; and that was pretty much true. Following is today’s standards.

2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons in Family	48 Contiguous States and D.C.	Alaska	Hawaii
1	$10,890	$13,600	$12,540
2	14,710	18,380	16,930
3	18,530	23,160	21,320
4	22,350	27,940	25,710
5	26,170	32,720	30,100
6	29,990	37,500	34,490
7	33,810	42,280	38,880
8	37,630	47,060	43,270
For each additional person, add	3,820	4,780	4,390

SOURCE:  Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 13, January 20, 2011, pp. 3637-3638

Thus my hopes would be at the poverty level today. Today we make much more than those in poverty but do not at all feel rich. In fact, we’d be less that the median income of the country and use savings to maintain the standard of living we want to live. And at times, such as the recessive times we even feel poor. Standards of living are slippery. Years ago I read a study that asked folk how much more money they would need in order to live comfortably. The answer was $2,000 or $3,000 no matter what your income level was. Slippery.

Poverty and how we view it is relative. It is where we stand in relation to others in our society. Thus, in our society, where the gap between the rich and poor is widening by remarkable degrees, more and more of us feel poor and more and more live in poverty. It has to do with inequality. In our materialistic country, we see value according to income levels. So, when we see  CEOs making huge salaries and other benefits it just does not seem fair. Are they that much more value to society than someone else who works just as hard? No! And that has been true throughout human history. Folk in biblical times did not compare their economic lives to folk who lived in caves before them, but to their contemporaries.

Ronald Sider puts forthe the idea in his book, Just Generosity: A New Vision of Overcoming Poverty in America. He quotes Leviticus 25.35-36 “If members of your community become poor in that the power slips with you, you shall make them strong…that they may live with you.” I find that consistent with Warren Buffet saying his secretary should not being paying a high income tax rate than he does. Several of the ultra wealthy 1% have expressed similar sentiments. John Calvin advocated debt forgiveness every 7 years as a way of decreasing these inequities.

All this has to do with liberty, the idea that the rich should not oppress the poor as they are prone to do. Adam Smith knew this when he envisioned a fair free enterprise system. As he put it, “A creditable day-laborer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty.”

The Bible nor free enterprise believers think that everyone absolute economic equality, but the inequality should not demean anyone. This is the major problem that our country faces today. As William Bole, who lifts these concepts for us to consider in the December 27 Christian Century puts it, “Millions of Americans – the unemployed, the working poor, the uninsured and many others – have been falling for quite some time. That some of them may be doing so with a cordless phone in their hands is not much consolation.

The Lost Art of Lament Writing

At one point in my ministry a group of clergy gathered and talked about an adult bookstore (a strange term) that existed in the downtown area. They began to talk about writing a letter to the newspaper decrying and condemning such a business as righteous Christian folk are prone to do.

During the discussion I asked my peers if any of them had every gone to that bookstore and looked at what they were selling. Of course, they had never done such a thing. So, I asked why we would condemn that of which we had no firm knowledge. They eyed me strangely. Then I said, instead of writing a letter of condemnation which likely few people who read aside from those who would feel equally self righteous in their condemnation of this perceived evil, that as a clergy association we write a letter of lament in the paper. A lament in which we would acknowledge our own culpability in contributing to a society where such endeavors were allowed to prosper and also lifted up our own self righteousness as though we were without sin ourselves.

They were, shall I say, a bit shocked by my proposal. I was equally shocked when they confessed a lack of knowledge about laments or had no idea as to how to write one. However, by this point that had gotten the idea I wanted to get across about mutual sinfulness of humanity and our perchance of making some sins bigger than others despite their merits.

I finally pointed out that a great many of the psalms were laments, acknowledgements to God of our shortcomings. I further offer to write such a lament and submit it to them for approval or rejection, revision, or additions so we could acknowledge to hopeful more readers a common problems we face when it comes to morality and sin. And thus in became to be, a modern psalm of lament confessing that we were a people who did not live up to God’s expectations or even the expectations of a moral society..

One of the attack ads against Newt Gingrich shows his many televised quotes where he states he makes mistakes. The ad obviously seeks to condemn such a man who makes mistakes; a maybe even more so, a man who admits mistakes.

You, who follow my writings, know that I am no fan of Gingrich and have a low opinion of his moral and ethical outlook. But I find his acknowledgement of mistakes refreshing and admirable. If only more of our political candidates would have the audacity to admit mistakes with candor and to admit that they have changed their views on subjects throughout their years; a mark of one who grows from mistakes.

In our society we seem to have a great difficulty accepting the sins and moral lapses of our leaders, as though we expect them to be perfect. It is naïve at best and just plain stupid at worst. It is one of the great strengths of biblical literature in that it writes about it historical leaders with a full accounting and their limitations as well; the inability of Moses to speak clearly and who killed a man in passion, the great King David and adulterer and manipulator of a man’s death. The disciples Jesus asked to follow him are rampant with moral, ethical, prideful, and faithfulness acts. But God loved and used these faulty people to accomplish amazing things. And God still can and does that today.

If we are wise, we will acknowledge the limitations of our fellow human beings, in leadership positions or followers and feel compassion for them and become more honest about our own shortcomings.

Bored, Yet Political Debate Is Important

Yeah, I’m bored with the election rhetoric along with most folk. I’m even bored with my own writing where I go over similar stuff all too often. But, it seems necessary to continue the dialogue and so I’ll slog along. I am also amazed at the seeming lack of political memory that appears to exist in this country.

Political debate today, and perhaps in most eras seems more like folk choosing athletic teams to cheer or boo. Athletics are exciting to many, illicit great emotion and excitement and passion, but in the end it’s just not that important. Folk won’t being going hungry, criminals won’t be reformed, and economic imbalance will not be affected because we Cheeseheads won’t be going to the Superbowl. Fun and makes a ridiculous amount of money for a few, but it’s not a big deal in the long run. Our political structure and its implications are a big deal and should be treated with seriousness and open debate based upon fact, ideals, and reasonable passion.

I also think that in politics we typically make mountains out of molehills. There are differences between the political parties, and there are differences between liberal and conservative points of views; important differences; but there is more similarity that dissimilarity.

In a previous article I spoke about the basic beliefs of liberals and conservatives. I think for the most part, reasonable folk agree in the importance of those beliefs in both parties. Conservatives are known to treasure tradition and to be cautious and support family values. I’m a liberal and I treasure tradition. I love reading history and think it is essential to the republic to keep us from repeating past mistakes. I have also always been a fiscal conservative, perhaps too much so, I don’t like risk, but applaud entrepreneurs, risk takers that do make better mousetraps; we need them. And as for family values, who on earth is against family ties, except for those who come from seriously dysfunctional families? It is a human value of the greatest importance.

I am also convinced that my conservative friends belief in traditional liberal values: “ board minded and tolerant of different views and behaviors of others,” As I quoted before. Progressive people want life to improve with each generation.

It is the degree of these things which we disagree that the heart of disagreements, I believe. For instance, “big government” is one of those words that triggers the emotion of conservatives. But do they really think liberals wants big government just for the sake of big government. Some say they want no government, but that just makes them out of touch with reality and would push us back into the caves and make civilization crumble. Civilized societies are those that take care of community members, take care for their brothers and sisters, that go beyond the survival of the fittest. The question really is what is the least amount of government necessary to protect the overall needs of society. For example, President Eisenhower, a Republican conservative, saw the need for interstate travel and how it would benefit the entire nation. He saw it as a beginning step in building a strong infrastructure to would benefit the whole. Unfortunately, we have lost his vision and our infrastructure is crumbling. Now, would be a good time to invest in it, to create jobs, lower unemployment and stimulate the economy and it would mean creating more debt as FDR did with the New Deal (which worked by the way.) But false ideology gets in the way of that thinking. And so the rhetoric begins about national debt and the burden we put on future generations; an argument I have heard my entire life. Conservatives conveniently forget that it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that created the largest debt ever. Clinton is the only recent president that had a balanced budget but Newt Gingrich wants to take credit for that. But it took a president and a congress that worked together to make it happen.

It is that ability to work with each other today, to compromise in order to work for the common good that we lack today in political debate. As I have said before, there seems to be for the first time no common ground between the most conservative of the liberals and the most progressive of the conservatives; and the nations suffers. It is why we have deadlock and do nothing congresses.

We also live in a world of instant gratification. President Obama is condemned for increasing national debt, bailing out big corporations and Wall Street, and not getting the economy back on its feet during his time in office. But the problems took a long time evolving and will take a long time to rectify. We easily forget he inherited most of these problems and their solutions.

Here I will take a position. For 35 years we have used supply side economics that Reagan introduced. That if the rich are turned loose with very few regulations the economy will grow and the money will “trickle down” to everyone and the country will grow. But that didn’t work and now we have the greatest disparity of income distribution in this country since 1929 and great depression. Demand side economics, Keynesian economics has a proven track record that we need to which we need to return.

We also need to remember our history, particularly the 1800’s when the economy was basically unregulated and we had frequent wild fluctuations in the economy. The government stepped in at that point to put in needed regulations to lessen these fluctuations and for the most part they worked. That is Keynesian economics. It was an economic system that both conservatives and liberals could support and use for the good of the country. It was also a time when the parties could work together, to be the public servants they were elected to be.

The time I am talking about is also when I believe we had good leadership in the country, statesmen versus “politicians” (politicians here defined as those who just examine political polls to find where the political winds are blowing so they can get elected.) Statesmen were persons of character whose beliefs they declared openly and honestly and let the electorate make up their mind as who they wanted to lead them at that time. Leaders are people of vision, and they are people who were to develop leadership in others. In my days as a pastor I called the local government body of my church, the session, the dreamers for the church, and committees were to be the dream capturers turning the visions into realities as faithful disciples of Christ and as servants to the world. In the secular world, the first election I recall vividly was between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. Both were good men and would be what I would call statesmen. I have written about voting for Barry Goldwater because I was enthralled by his clear vision and honest. And the president that caught my imagination the most was John Kennedy, who gave vision to a country as well as anyone in the 20^th century.  

With the huge amounts of money being raised by candidates and PAC groups and their values of expediency I have talked about, I see as a real danger to our country. Fear mongering has replaced reasonable debate and clear political positions. It is hard for voters to make up their minds with conflicting statements candidates make catered to a particular event, and we grow bored and angered by the process. Given my druthers I would limit all campaigning to a dollar or two designated for such on your tax return.

I realize this is a bit lengthy, but politics is important and sound bites inform us little. If I have helped the debate, good. If it just is more stuff to you, I apologize.

I know folk will disagree with information I put forth, but I try to be a factual and honest as I can. And I hope they will see keep all I say in the context in which it is written

Immigrants

When the word immigrants come to mind, what type of person do you picture? Do you see a group of folk sneaking across the border from Mexico ready to steal jobs from American citizens?

Strangely I think Newt Gingrich provided some helpful insight on the issue of immigration in one of the Republican debates in which he defused some popular stereotypes, when he pointed out many of his party see 10 million sneaking across the border last night.

Here is some helpful data from the Pew Hispanic Center and non-partisan research center who finding I found in a recent issue of Christian Century. 35% of have been here for at least 15 years; another 28% at least 10 years; half are parents of children under 18 years old. 39% of them attend church of a regular basis. Thus the real image of an illegal immigrant is family oriented, hard working taxpaying, church going  deeply rooted in the U.S.A.

Gingrich said it absurd not to find a pathway for legal status for these people. His plan seems to be a bit arbitrary but it show a willingness and a sensibility to work on the issue. The silly part of his plan is you need to be here 25 years to qualify for his plan; why that number? So, he wants individual meetings with all these people by local panels and then they can become legal residency but not citizens – the right to vote. Weird, but better than most concepts from the right.

Romney's Problem

The political pundits are all discussing why Mitt Romney can’t seem to win. George Will on This Week  this morning moderated by George Stephanopoulos,  says it is because of his “Romneyness.” Another said it was because of his “Mittness.” They mean that Romney just cannot connect with the supporters of Republican candidates. There is likely a certain amount of truth in that; some folk just don’t seem to be able to connect with others.

I think Romney’s problem is more systemic than that. I believe that Romney’s problem is not so much with himself but with the party itself which is splintered in all directions. You have heard me write about that the Republican Party has moved from traditional conservatism since Reagan. That I believe is truth. The question is where it has moved? The answer to that is that it has moved in several directions all at once. They are like the man who jumped on his horse and rode off in all directions.

There are those who believe debt is the big problem and total ignore that the majority of our debt today was created by Reagan and G.W. Bush. But we always blame the Democrats as the spenders whether it is true or not.

There are those upset with big business and bankers, which is the heart of the Republican Party and has effectively taken control of it if not the mind of the voters, they have manipulated them. They just keep blaming Obama for the problems they created and Obama was not able to fix with a Republican congress, and a strong business lobbyists system.

Then there are the Tea Party folk who want to run pell mell back to the 18^th century, ignoring that the country is entirely different than it was then. They have a mantra of small or best yet, no government, yet if you take away anyone of the government programs which benefit them they will scream bloody murder.

Then there is the radical religious right with a great desire to outlaw practices in the country with which they disagree: abortion, stem cell research, birth control, etc., all of which stand in stark contrast to conservative values of non government interference with individual choices. They, in essence, want big government but one that enforces their particular values.

Romney has a real problem in that he is the closest to traditional conservatism which the Republican Party has moved away from those values into many different ones.

Today’s voters just seem against things and for very little. And the world looks at us for the leadership we should have and demonstrate and find it lacking.

Integrity/Character, Relationships and Competency

Proverbs 22:  ¹A sterling reputation is better than striking it rich; a gracious spirit is better than money in the bank. [The Message]

We are in the long and laborious process of choosing the leader of our nation, the President. We have various values to assess leadership values. But in today’s political debates it is very hard to figure out what those criteria of leadership are.

There was study done some time ago asking folk what they admired most of their leaders, and the most often stated response was integrity.  Amen to that. The coach John Wooden once said, “Be more concerned with you character than with your reputation, because your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”

In the book, Leaders that Last by Dave Kraft I mentioned in the last article, he writes about a seminar he led entitled “Critical Factors for success” which he listed in three categories: 1. Character in your person, 2. Caring in your relationships, 3. Competence in you endeavors. I like his values and the order he puts them in. He then goes on to quote Arthur Friedman, “Men of power are feared, but only men of character are trusted.”

In my leadership of churches over the years it was clear to me and I tried to make it clear to the congregations I served that they were not my boss and I was not their employee. My boss was God, and I was responsible to God for the care and leadership of the congregation and they were as well. In the Presbyterian form of government that was also true that the Session, which included pastors (teaching elders) and ruling elders, were responsible to the Presbytery (the highest level of government in the church) for the welfare and care of the congregation. And, it was my experience when congregations realized that they worked well, and when they forgot it, became more concerned with personal issues, druthers, preferences and personalities, they were at sea. Leadership was lost or in big trouble.

As we look for a national leader I believe these are leadership criteria we should be looking for, but you see little evidence of it, or reporting of it or that evaluation taking place. Several looking for the most important office in government seem to just plain lack competency, they often are more abusive of relationships with those they disagree with than reconciliatory, and as for integrity, the most important characteristic; it’s hardest to find.

Now to be honest, I do see those characteristics in our President, Barack Obama, but I think political pressures make it difficult for him to maintain them. As to the morass in the Republican Party that has veered so far from the conservative tract, those values seem to have been lost.

I have written that the dominant morality of today is the morality of expediency. These candidates seem to follow that morality, and have found that fear tactics, and outright lying about their opponents is very effective. And the values of character (integrity), relationships, and competency are lost in the rush.

This also says a great deal about us as a nation. While I believe the ultra rich has pretty much stole the national leadership and we have become a type of oligarchy; we have allowed this condition to take place. So, our character is called into question as well as we have not done all that we should have done to stop this condition and even condemn those who are trying to restore democratic principles.

While I do not believe in the mixture of church and state, I certainly believe the religious values mentioned ought to dominant political debate and they are not. If we seek to faithful in our religious beliefs I believe it will make far better citizens and encourage those folk who share our basic values to be the true leaders of the land.

Language, Liberals, and Conservatives

The following is the first reading from the daily lectionary.

First Reading Genesis 11:1-9

[1]Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. [2]And as they
migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and
settled there. [3]And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and
burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar.
[4]Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its
top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall
be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." [5]The LORD came down
to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. [6]And the LORD said,
"Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only
the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now
be impossible for them. [7]Come, let us go down, and confuse their language
there, so that they will not understand one another's speech." [8]So the LORD
scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left
off building the city. [9]Therefore it was called Babel, because there the
LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered
them abroad over the face of all the earth.

It amazes me that people who supposed speak the same language, cannot communicate with each other. Politicians and Religious folk stand out in this area. Conservatives of the past, such as those who called themselves the silent majority (which were neither silent nor the majority) made the term liberal a dirty word. Liberal means board minded and tolerant of different views and behaviors of others. That’s the social definition. Politically it means those who favor political reform that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly and protect the personal freedom of the individual. These are dictionary definitions not something I made up. Liberal sounds good to me.

Now for conservatism: reluctant to accept change, in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs and against change; avoid showiness, cautious. Again, some pretty good values, especially the traditional values and caution. As a liberal I can affirm those qualities. And it reflects the problem of modern Republicanism, it that they no longer follow those values.

I’m also reading a book, Leaders Who Last by Dave Kraft. He has lots of good things to say about leaders and the passion we should have for our work. He relates many sound principles of leadership, but I find myself uncomfortable with some of what he says and his style. He leads one to believe the true leader is constantly manic, always up, always enthusiastic and passionate but the truth is we all have times when that just is not the case,  unless you are mentally ill. Perhaps it raises the hackles of my Presbyterian traditions, who have on occasion been called the Frozen chosen. I like to think in my ministry I was basically a good news type of preacher who lifted the human spirits with the teachings of Jesus and the prophets; but the prophetic part was also called us to task when warranted. I also liked to think of myself as one who chose to appeal to people's intellect and thinking rather than just to their emotions. There needs to be a balance between the two, but reason with the one I trust if it fits with a good feel.

Again, the same language is often used but we find ourselves in religion at cross purposes and load words with positive or negative meanings depending upon our predilections.

God confused our language in the biblical story for a good reason, so we wouldn’t get so uppity and full of ourselves and think we could build ourselves (earn our way) to heaven. Heaven is a gift from the Almighty.

And so we turn on the news or go to church and listen to Babel. However, I firmly believe that if we do our work, think through the terms, remember our history, and used our God given talents and most, rely upon the inspiration of God’s spirit, we can hear and see truth. We also need to realize people view truth in many ways; we should be liberal in accepting the variances, know our history and traditions to see how the fit and move forward in loving and caring ways.

Psalms of Relavancy

The daily lectionary had the following psalm for this morning.

Morning Psalm 15

[1]   O LORD, who may abide in your tent?
         Who may dwell on your holy hill?

[2]   Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right,
         and speak the truth from their heart;
[3]   who do not slander with their tongue,
         and do no evil to their friends,
         nor take up a reproach against their neighbors;
[4]   in whose eyes the wicked are despised,
         but who honor those who fear the LORD;
    who stand by their oath even to their hurt;
[5]   who do not lend money at interest,
         and do not take a bribe against the innocent.
    Those who do these things shall never be moved.

With the candidates courting religious groups so covertly you wonder if the courters or those courted take serious the scriptures with which they like to bludgeon each other.

Why Do I Play Golf?

There are lots of reasons why I play golf, here are some. For one thing I needed sometime to occupy my time when I retired, and I like new challenges so why not golf. I really didn’t think I would like it as much as I do. Like playing bridge, there are always things to learn; you just can’t know everything in golf and things keep changing. Physically it has been great; my body feels better now than it did 20 years ago or when I was playing tennis. It keeps me limber and my arthritis has improved vastly. I also, like a lot of guys, like toys and there are a ton of them when it comes to golf. That’s also a negative, it costs too much to play this sport but fortunately we’ve been able to find places to make it affordable for us. There is also the esthetic part; with rare exceptions almost all golf course are beautiful. If you don’t think so, just walk a golf course backwards and you will find beauty that you may have never seen before.

The primary reason I like to play golf however is because of the people. Oh golf has its share of boneheads, but I have found for the most part golfers when nice folk to be with. It is a social game and golfers possess a type of integrity involved in the playing that is morally rewarding. You are your own referee. The few cheaters just hurt themselves more than anyone else.

It many ways it has the same things that I enjoyed about serving in churches. Nice people, who have fun and delight in each other when they follow the rules. And, the Lord’s name is invoked often; perhaps not the way it is in a church sense, nevertheless, there is a spiritual aspect of the game. A friend of mine, Matt Molke, gave me a great sermon from golf. He told me one day, “Golf is like Christianity. You try to do your best and you know you never will be perfect, but you get great joy out of trying to do so.” I find that profound.

Delusions of Adequacy

Delusions of adequacy is a phrase I heard the other day, I forgot where, but I thought it was most interesting. Marj K noted on Facebook today that 6 companies give us 90% of what we see and read: GE, Newcorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. I think they reflect delusions of adequacy. Reporting of news today is basically aimed at reporting bad news. No wonder we sell millions of dollars of antidepressants; with what the news tells us who wouldn’t be depressed.

Since being down here Doreen and I have been watching the Anderson Show. Anderson Cooper is a good smart man who communicates well also Gloria Vanderbilt’s son. But his is like so many shows that concentrate of horrible problems of our society and strange people. Today his show starts with a man who is selling his own sperm to couples; need I say more? And, of course, the audience claps when the whackos they invite get stomped on in the interviews. I prefer Regis and Kelly, now just Kelly which has very little substance at all, but is fun to watch and is positive. I like those movies that make you think and pull at your heartstrings, but they need to be balanced with 10 light hearted comedies.

One place we have found that is in no way deluded by adequacy, is the church where we worship here, the First Presbyterian Church of Dunedin. It is a great church with sterling pastoral leadership, demonstrating and proclaiming the good news in their community and beyond. It is a joy to attend there and get to know the parishioners.

Jesus did not come to teach us about adequacy but unqualified faithfulness and commitment. And he certainly did not push us toward delusions, despite what Marx might say about religion in general. Christianity is about excellency with the full knowledge of human limitations. God loves us unconditionally and we are to respond with that same unconditional love. Churches sometimes reflect that truth and often just become another secular type institution proclaiming negativity, and these are the ones the deludedly adequate media report. But then there are those churches like the one in Dunedin that restore faith.

Here’s to good news, but you have to look for it because it is not readily available in our delusions of the adequate society.

Magazines have come

The postal service has found us and a lot of mail came here yesterday including: two golf magazines, the last to copies of Christian Century, Time, and those things that Doreen enjoys. I always like getting my copy of Christian Century and immediately turn to the “Century Marks” section which always has nifty quotes and often interesting poll survey information. Here are some that caught my eye this time:

One bit was on nuns versus corporations. Apparently this one order of nuns buy the minimum amount of stock needed to make resolutions are stockholders meetings. There they push for reining in executive pay, corporate transparency and concern for the poor. Apparently it works as some corporate exes flew their helicopter to the convent so they could meet with them privately; and hopefully not at their stockholder meetings. Atta go nuns!

Data: Obama’s health care reform would be paid for my increasing taxes on investment and those making more than a million per year, meaning the top 400 tax payers would pay an additional 11 million annually; don’t worry, they can afford it.

 More data: it costs $37,000 a year to go to Princeton University. It costs $44,000 per year to house an inmate at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton. High education between 1987 and 2007 increased 21%, correctional spending went up 127%. 

Great quote as a spoof on the Serenity Prayer by cartoonist Brian McFadden: “God, grant us the austerity to defund America back into recession, courage to ignore basic economics, and wisdom to know everything we do we can be reversed by a future Congress before it takes effect.”

And finally this informative graph:

What Is a Fair Tax?/Politicians vs Statesmen

The discussions rage over what are fair taxes. And if you have read articles in this blog or elsewhere what tax rates are shown historically you know that they have changed drastically over the years. More specifically that tax rates have radically changed in favor of the rich since the Reagan years. But that is history.

What I think is more significant is how the change in personal income has changed in relation to GDP over the years. That gap has widened significantly over the last 35 years and has created the huge gap between the rich and the middle classes and the poor. The country has grown economically but most of the populace has not grown at the same rate, they have even gone backwards and that is the result of a bad tax code.

It is true that we need to provide incentives for businesses to thrive and grow but not at the expense of those who work for them. And, there are outside causes that beleaguer the small businesses of today. The foremost of those is clearly the out of control medical practices of this country which have grown completely out of proportion with the rest of the economy and has placed an enormous burden upon small business.

And then there is the incredible greed of large corporations and the mammoth banks which have contributed significantly to the difference between income of the rich and the middle and lower classes. It is also this group that through their funding of candidates that support their vested interests that we have the disparity of levels that we have today. They have literally bought the government turning into an oligarchy of the rich.

The tax code obviously needs to be simplified so that these disparities disappear. Each year it should be reviewed to see how income levels of all members of society get a fair share of the national income.

This directs me to the nature of statesmen versus politicians. Admittedly this is an artificial distinction I make, but it makes a point. Politicians, in my view, have come to depict those folk who run for office to for power and authority and cater to whatever vested interests will get them elected. They are not public servants but the lackeys of those who back them. Statesmen, as I define them, are those people who have a political point of view and understand the issues of the day and seek to good of all their constituents; they are truly public servants, who give of their time and talent to work for the good the citizenry. [Read J.F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage to see this concept full fleshed out.]

When we look at the political debates currently going on, they do not bring out the statesmanship of those candidates, but their political savvy. What can I say as a candidate, whether I believe it or not, will be what will garner me the most votes.

In my opinion President Obama is a statesman, who keeps his eye on the ball. But I fear for him as he seeks to accomplish his goals while maintaining electability.

On the Republican side, I think Romney is a good man and the best potential leader, but I also believe he sells himself short as he seeks to cater to the radical fringe groups of the Republican Party. George Will is right when he says “the Tea Party is the passionate part of the Republican party”, but that doesn’t mean they are not radical whackos who want to go back to a time that never was. Moderates, those folk who made the government work in the past, have disappeared from the scene. So, Romney does not want to be seen as a moderate, which is what I believe is what he is. Gingrich claims to be a good ol Reagan Conservative, which is the group that messed up the economy and government.

Note, I have said Republicans here, rather than conservatives, as those folk and their ideals disappeared when Reagan came into office.

Liberal and Conservative statesmen in our political history did work for fair taxes. Democratic and Republican politicians do not. They just bend where the political winds blow and the nation suffers.