Lucky

This Thanksgiving, I feel... and maybe more then ever before... I feel... Lucky. My wife, my kids, my work with the Dispensary of Hope, St. B's, new dear friends, supper club, our home. It all takes a lot of hard work, and sacrifices, and willingness to endure set backs and dissapointments... but today, more than anything, I feel fortunate. I feel like I am getting the better end of the deal - blessed and lucky.

Exactly what is "socialism"?

For two years now, we've all been hearing that if Obama gets elected, the forces of socialism would take over our country. Honestly, it sounds scary (like an alien invasion or attack of the body snatchers)... but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that no one ever seemed to explain it or even understand it, so I decided to resist joining the masses in fearing something I didn't understand, and research the topic. Here's some of what I uncovered...

If we were starting a new country, history shows us variations of a few ideologies that orient how a country's economy and government works. To best answer what socialism is, it helps to unpack the extreme opposites of capitalism and communism - which revels socialism's place.

A. Capitalism was founded on concepts from the manuscript "Wealth of Nations." It features: individualism, free markets, profit motive, and private property-in a environment of civil liberties. In it's purist form, it rejects all government regulation and intervention and relies completely on supply and demand forces of a free market. It suggests that wealth is the primary sign of success, whereas the rich deserve to be rich, and the poor deserve to be poor. America and the western world offers examples of how it may be the best structure to offer maximum opportunity and sustainability, but because it favors the rich, its weaknesses are greed and corruption at the top and cyclical poverty at the bottom.

B. Communism started with the observations and questions raised by Marx who wanted to right the wrongs of monarchy and capitalism and achieve Utopia. He articulated the ideals of the common good, social responsibility, economic collectivism, and group ownership. In the 1700's, Lenin applied this ideology by forming Communist Russia where the state controlled all industry, wealth, and land ownership to ensure equal housing, wages, benefits. The former USSR, Cuba, and China offer examples of how communist dictatorships demand citizen compliance, control the press, and realize mixed economic results but limited freedom.

So, as I'm understanding it, capitalism and communism could be considered opposites - both in terms of economic drivers and individual freedoms. So, I'm convinced that some of Communism's ideals are not all bad (common good) but capitalism is superior if you actually want the economy to work and citizens to be free. So, it appears there is a reasonable argument that capitalism requires modifications to achieve the "common good" - and this is why various government interventions are added. It's not a replacement model like Communism, rather an attempt to create a hybrid mix of the best of capitalism and the best of communism's ideals. Looking for an example? Look no further then America! Yes, the US model is NOT pure capitalism. To try to correct the shortfalls of capitalism, we've added Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, unemployment benefits, and other social services. Now, we can debate if the government has already gone too far, and that Obama would take us further... but my friends (thank you Mr. McCain), we are already a part capitalistic and part socialistic nation.

The Beginning of the End of the "Religious Right"?

Remember the good old days when political categories were simple and predictable? Democrats represented unions, teachers, the poor, and the liberals (aka the godless Left)... while Republicans could always count on big corporations, hunters, seniors and God-fearing church-going folk (aka the "Religious Right"). But is this still true today?

The 2008 election of Senator Obama, and a modest overthrow of the Republicans in Congress reveals that the categories are shifting. Did you know that per NYT Exit Polls Obama made gains among religious voters - attracting Catholic (54%) and Jewish (78%) votes, and even Protestant and Evangelical voters(45%)? It's interesting that so many Jewish Americans supported a man that the GOP tried to cast as Muslim and not pro-Israel (and then just today Obama selected a Jewish man to be his Chief of Staff). It's also interesting that Obama attracted 43% of all people who "attend church at least once a week" - so either churches have lost their way, or maybe Obama stands for enough priorities that fit inside their Christian world view. Granted John McCain won the votes of more of white Evangelicals, but it was by a smaller margin than President Bush won in 2004 and many younger voters that I have met who go to church saw the 2008 election as an opportunity to rethink their faith and politics - and we've not been comfortable landing in the stereotype of the "religious right" of the Republican party. Some did not vote republican for the first time and voted independent or for Obama. So what is the explanation of this exodus from the "Religious Right" by so many church-going people?

I read an interesting article today that offered an explanation... Some theologians suggest that the religious shift signals the emergence of a faith-based coalition that will counterbalance or, perhaps, replace the religious right. It’s made up of mainline religious progressives, black and Hispanic Evangelicals, and a growing number of younger, white Evangelicals and Catholics.
A “whole new faith coalition is coming together and reaching out to allies in other faith traditions, both Jewish and Muslim,” says Jim Wallis, a theologian on religion and public life. “The generational shift [among Evangelicals and Catholics] is very significant. Many young Christians cast a post-religious-right ballot.” Other analysts say Obama did make inroads with younger white evangelicals in key states like Colorado and Indiana, where he boosted his support among Evangelicals by 14 percentage points and 8 percentage points, respectively, over Kerry’s 2004 levels.

So I wonder... Is this a reflection of a younger generation that is not as traditionalist... or is it possible that God is actually neither a Republican or a Democrat - and one party does not own Him... and both sides reflect priorities that matter to thoughtful Christians. As a former "Right-wing" Republican, I recommend that the GOP and conservative Christians in particular resist "The Sky is Falling" dismay, and in stead do some soul searching and look again at the broader list of priorities that matter to God. Otherwise, they are going to continue to lose voters - and before long there will be a voting block called the "Religious Left" who are still pro-life and pro-marriage but also identify with broader moral values of stewardship - around poverty, health care, creation-care, and womb to tomb right to life - that inspires creative solutions to balance personal responsibility with the common good.

The Day After America Elected Obama

Last night, nearly 100 million citizens engaged in their democracy and showed up to pull the lever - and the conclusion is that, for the first time in a long time, we voted down the Republican candidates and voted up the Democrats and the first black President? At the same time, we voted in California, to uphold the traditional and Biblical definition of marriage, while allowing doctor assisted end of life measures and legal use of "illegal" drugs.

Senator Obama's first words as President-elect showed promise of humility, inclusiveness, and pragmatic problem solving. Only time will tell what these soaring words will look like - but I expect a thoughtful decision maker, who leans on the pragmatic needs of the country as a whole more than making the Democratic majority congress happy. I could be dead wrong, but so could the scared conservative nay-sayers.... and only time will tell. For now, over 60,000,000 Americans voted for Obama - and he deserves a chance, our support, and let's see what happens.

Daddy, will you still like me if I play for the NY Giants?

I was sitting on a stuffed blue child-sized chair with my 5-year old on Sunday while watching a captivating episode of "Little Bear." Sometime after the duck and his friend started having a tea party, my son looked up at me and blurted out, "Dad, I was thinking that when I grow up I want to be a spaceman.... and (long thinking pause) a football player. But not for your team, the Eagles. No, I will be a football player for the Giants. Dad, if I play for the NY Giants, will you still like me then? My son adds... "Because, I really want you to still like me all the time."

I shifted 100% of my attention to this little boy's central question. It is my question and your question. Whatever the "if", we need to have someone respond with an emphatic yes, That they will always still like us. I looked down at my son, and said "I will like you and love you no matter what... and if you play football for the NY Giants, I will jump up and down and cheer for you." He just turned and started watching Little Bear again... but we both knew that while Daddy is an Eagles fan through and through, something even more important was just established between us. Later that day, it just so happened that the Eagles game was not shown in our area, but the Giants and Cowboys game was. So, I cheered with my son - and his aunt and uncle visiting from out of town - and just so happened that the Giants won!

The Silver Bullet Against Obama!

I was recently presented with the transcript of the Obama radio interview that was supposedly kept secret until now to the delight of a hopeful come-from-behind GOP ticket. I was curious, as I am much more a fan of the whole truth than I am any party or candidate, so I read it eagerly. While this is an interesting discussion, I did NOT find a silver bullet against Obama. First of all, the facts... then a note about political tactics.
It appears that Obama, serving as a law professor at the time of the interview, was using the constitutional law language of "redistribution" - which we, understandably, would confuse with the typical socialism concept. As is noted further down in the commentary, Obama was making a point similar to MLK, about how the founding father's crafted the constitution so it provides basic general rights - and the grammar happens to be where most is stated in negative (states may not do x, y, z), but it does not say what you have to do - and certainly not in specifics, as this was left to the States (aka "Federalism"). Obama agreed that the Constitution's role is to provide these general boundaries... and then the states and federal legislature's role is to flesh out the details of how those rights are ensured. (Note this is rather conservative, not liberal, theory Obama is agreeing with here). In some cases, the courts get involved to try to interpret the constitution and subsequent laws - and sometimes they are criticized for legislating to try to make something wrong right. It's not a strick conservative approach for sure, but I can appreciate how just because something is law does not make it right or relevant - and changes (i.e. amendments and new laws) are needed for our documents to be moral. MLK made the point that the constitution did not specifically say that black Americans have the right to vote, so the civil rights movement needed to push to have legislation ensure that. Once that was in place... MLK make the point that the right to vote still did not address the closely related factors that caused the injustice - like poverty and work place discrimination - and ultimately real change requires the change of the heart. Apparently, the legal way to state how the intention of laws need to trickle down into the reality of positive social change is accurately called "redistribution of wealth" - meaning that the stated benefits of the constitution and new legislation (words) are realized by the people in need of it(action). It has NOTHING to do with taxing rich people and giving it to poor people. It's has EVERYTHING to do with how our government, constitution, and laws actually protect and benefit citizens.
Now to political tactics. I find it interesting that this is circulating with 1 week to go... because it has been out there all along, and if it was a real silver bullet, they would have used it a long time ago... but now that there is desperation... along comes the totally false smear. Even Obama's recent comment about "spread the wealth around" was not about socialism - as there is a lot of ground between communism/socialism and top-heavy system that favors the rich and the powerful. It starts with getting back to a level playing field (the very rich and corporations can hide their money in shelters from taxes... while you and I can not)... and then our tax policy flows from that based on a responsible balanced budget. I'm not a law professor nor a political hawk, so if I got this wrong, please let me know. Meanwhile, I do know that individual responsibility and contribution and the common good are not mutually exclusive - and we need both.