Some Thoughts on the Currently-In-Process Transition of Political Power in USAmerica

 I did not vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. While I found him to be impersonal and disconnected from an average person’s reality, those judgements had nothing to do with my vote. Rather, I looked at his policy proposals and decided that my theology and political perspective differed too much from those proposals. 

I did vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. While I found her to be impersonal and disconnected from an average person’s reality, those judgements had nothing to do with my vote. Instead, I looked at her policy proposals and decided that they were more in line with my own theology and political perspective than not. 

I was disappointed that the candidate I voted for didn’t win the election in 2016, just like I’ve been disappointed every time the candidate I voted for didn’t win an election. I was disappointed by the vitriol and hatred spewed by those who were disappointed in the results of the 2008 election. I was disappointed by the vitriol and hatred demonstrated by those who were saddened by the results of the 2012 election. I was embarrassed by the vitriol and hatred embodied by those who were dissatisfied by the results of the 2016 election. 

For the past four years I’ve prayed regularly for President Trump. He was our president, elected legally by a minority of voters and a majority of the electoral college. I wished the best for him, because as our nation is successful our President is successful.

And yesterday our next president was inaugurated. I will pray regularly for President Biden because he is our president, elected legally by a majority of voters and a majority of the electoral college. I wish the best for him, because as our nation is successful then he will be successful.

The election didn’t go the way I hoped in 2016. But I’ve never once said that President Trump was not my president. I’m a citizen of the United States of America; Mr. Trump was properly elected as our President; therefore, he was my president. I disagreed with many of the decisions he made and many of the policy positions he promoted. He was the president of the nation of which I’m a citizen, so he was my president. 

One of the things I’ve heard yelled on social media is something like, “If you don’t like our president, you should move to a different country.” I disagree. Part of the founding and foundation of our nation is that we have the freedom to disagree with the ruling authorities. Healthy disagreements are essential to the health and vitality of our nation and our democratic republican government.

Those who say something like, “He’s not my president” probably should pick up and move to a different country, what they’re disagreeing with is our system of electing officials and not with a singular president’s policy decisions. I thought that over the past four years, and I think that now. 

$0.02

Social Media: What I Want

I like looking at Facebook to see silly photos of my friends and my friends’ kids, to find out about food trucks coming to my neighborhood, and to remember people I don’t see very often.

I like looking at Instagram to see beautiful photos of beautiful places where people I may or may not know go on beautiful adventures.

I like looking at Twitter to hear different perspectives about political topics, and other random subjects. 

I like watching YouTube to find recipes for cooking delicious things on the grill, and to watch music performances. 

That’s what I want from social media. Right now, though, every one of the outlets I pay attention to is riddled with posts related to the murder of George Floyd. A similar thing happened with countless other black people who’ve been killed by our society. Social Media erupted. And rightly so. People have a right to be angry, and to express their anger and frustration through the means by which we communicate these days. 

I want my social media feeds to go back to the way they were. And also I’m glad that they’re being disrupted right now. Because from where I sit (white, male, middle-aged, cis-gender, employed, part of a healthy family, and with access to resources … the very definition of a position of great privilege in this society), I need to be disrupted. We all need to be disrupted right now. Because there’s pain and brokenness and suffering and struggle and turmoil and sorrow in our society today … and if we’re not disturbed about that, all we’ll do is perpetuate the problem. 

I want my social media feed to go back to the way I like it. But I hope that doesn’t happen right away. Because if things go back to the way they were before right away, then nothing will have changed. And we need change in our world, in our society, in our nation. 

I really do still want to see silly photos of children, and beautiful photos of outdoor adventure spaces. And at the same time, I want to see our world become more equitable. It's not gonna be easy, though.

The way I see it, this is what my role should be. 1) Shut up, listen to people who have been marginalized by society for centuries, and believe what they say. 2) Call out other white people when they perpetuate racism and hatred, because 400 years of our national history have taught us that white people don't listen to anyone who's not also white. 

It’s not gonna be easy. And it’ll be worth it. 

In Response to Sandy Hook

I've heard that now is not the right time to talk about gun laws, that we should grieve and allow the families of those killed in Newtown to grieve.

 OK.

Trouble is, once we've begun to get over our national grief, we'll forget to have the conversation that it's too soon to have right now. We won't remember this conversation until the next massacre, when it will (again) be too soon to have the conversation.

I'm beginning to believe that there can be no better time than right now. And I'm interest in honest conversation. I'm not interested in folks regurgitating what they've seen on a liberal website or heard on a conservative talk show. Of course, if that's all you're able to say, and it's what you believe, then say it … but after you say what you have to say, then listen honestly to the response. Don't listen for a place to make your next point – listen for the truth that is being spoken by the other person.

So, here's my contribution … my seven readers should feel free to disagree, but please keep the conversation respectful.

I'm troubled, like a lot of people are, by how easy it is for almost anyone to obtain weapons that are incredibly destructive. Bear in mind, I learned to shoot before I was a teenager, and enjoy guns a great deal. I think it's ethical to hunt for food, provided it's done responsibly and within the parameters of the law. And I think it's fine, for those who feel the necessity, to keep weapons around for self-defense.

But I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary for an average and ordinary person to be able to legally obtain high-powered assault rifles and 100-round-capacity clips.

No, I'm not trying to take away anyone's constitutional rights. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is still important. But what does the Second Amendment actually say?

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. And in my reading, the right to keep and bear arms is for self-protection, particularly from an authoritarian or oppressive government. Which, given the geo-political situation in the late 18th century, we can understand.

The Second Amendment seems to be designed as a guarantee that individuals and households would be able to acquire the means by which to protect themselves. The trouble, though, is that keeping guns for self-defense would preclude the necessity to keep assault weapons. See, assault weapons are not designed for self-defense, but for attack and aggression (hence the name 'assault' weapon).

The Second Amendment also ties the right of gun ownership to a well-regulated militia. From my perspective, we don't have any well-regulated militia. I know that there are militia-type groups around which seem to either operate off-the-grid and away from regulatory bodies, or are monitored by the FBI as potential hate groups.

Right now there is nothing well-regulated about any militias. I wonder if those who advocate for fewer restrictions on gun ownership would be willing to accept the 'well-regulated' portion of the Second Amendment.

The thing is that almost every single gun owner I've talked with is a proponent of safe and responsible gun usage. They're in favor of responsible citizens having access to firearms, and those who can't be trusted to be safe with guns (felons, the mentally unstable, young children, etc.) to not have that access.

What I don't understand is why gun-advocacy groups are so very worried about adding appropriate regulation. Why not pass laws relating to guns that mirror automobile laws? Both are useful tools that, used irresponsibly, can be deadly weapons. What would it be like if we required gun owners to be trained, licensed, and insured?

Let's have the conversation now, and not wait until the next tragedy.

$0.02

A Post-Election Prayer for a Christian? Nation

The election is over, and we know the results.  This is good news even if for only one reason ~ that we won't be inundated with political advertising until at least after the inauguration.

Like many of you, my seven readers, I've been sickened by the amount of partisan bickering that we've been exposed to over the course of this election cycle.

More than that, I've been sickened by the amount of money that has been spent on advertising.  What if only 10% ... or even just 1% ... of that money had been set aside for the poor and vulnerable instead of going to line the pockets of executives and investors?

Now that the campaign and election are over, I suppose that my prayer would be this:

• that no matter what laws are passed or repealed; 
• that no matter what policies are implemented or what compromises are struck; 
• that no matter which person or party is seen as the winner or loser on any particular issue 
• that, above all, the priority of the government, and of our nation, would be to care for the poorest and most vulnerable populations.  

This alone, in my opinion, would make us a Christian Nation.

$0.02

A Simple Plea

For a few days after Super-Storm Sandy, the presidential campaigns were put on hold. Governmental officials, candidates, and campaigns paused their campaigning to deal with the storm. There was no aggressive political maneuvering, no name-calling, no partisan bickering.

I don't wish natural disasters on anyone, but that was a pleasant time in our national political life. It's a shame that it took a natural disaster to scale back the bitterness in the presidential campaign.

But what if the candidates structured their campaigns as if there were a disaster looming? What if they decided to work together, and to treat each other well all of the time?

It seems to me that there's a basic and fundamental difference between the two parties, and between the two candidates. And, as we witnessed in the third debate, there are some substantial similarities.

What would the campaign season be like if the candidates and the parties began the campaigns by celebrating their similarities?

And then, what would the campaign season be like if the candidates each remembered that the other is a beloved child of G-d and treated them as such?

And after that, what would the campaign season be like if the candidates and parties respectfully articulated their differences?

Right now, the candidates seem to be focused on making their opponent look bad rather than articulating what's good about their own positions and philosophies.

It seems to me that one side wants to paint the other as a greedy, self-serving, uncaring, out-of-touch rich person who has no idea what regular people are like. And it seems to me that the other side wants to paint their opponent as an un-american socialist who only wants to destroy our nation.

Neither of these is a true portrait of either individual, but these are the messages we're sending. What if we, as a people, decided to send a different message?

Right now, the message from politics is that it's perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, to denigrate someone else, to paint them as the embodiment of evil with no redeeming qualities. I'm not sure that's a message I want to hear, and I'm sure it's not what I want to teach my children.

What would the campaign season, and our national life together, be like if we did less tearing each other down and more building up of us as a whole?

What if the candidates structured their campaigns as if there were a disaster looming? I believe they ought to, because I believe that if we don't change the tenor of our national political conversation, a disaster is looming.

$0.02

Pre-Debate Thoughts

I'm getting ready to watch the second presidential debate tonight. I watched the first, but wasn't able to watch the Vice-Presidential candidates debate, and am glad to live in a place where we have the opportunity to freely express our ideas, whether or not we agree with our neighbor or our government.

During the debate, I expect to see a few things. I expect to see the candidates not really answering the questions they're asked.

I expect to see the candidates highlighting their opponent's weaknesses more than they highlight their own strengths.

I expect to see the candidates act cordial to one another while their political machines work overtime to exploit any shortcomings they see in their opponent's performance.

I expect to see, in the aftermath of the debate, each candidate villainized by the other by way of advertising (we don't really believe that the so-called independent political advertisers and organizations are actually independent, do we?).

That's what I expect to see, but it's not what I want to see. Here's what I'd love to see in tonight's debate.

I'd love to see the candidates actually answer the questions they're asked.

I'd love to see the candidates respectfully disagree, even to the point of acknowledging the strengths of their opponent's position.

I'd love to see the candidates articulate the strengths of their own position rather than the weaknesses of their opponent's position (or character, or anything else).

And I'd love to see, in the aftermath of the debate, political advertising that points to strengths rather than sensationalizing weaknesses. And most especially, I'd love to see advertising that doesn't demonize any candidate or the supporters of that candidate.

What we seem to forget in our political discourse is that the person who holds a different position from mine is still a person ~ no better or worse than any other person.

In the language of my own tradition, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican … whether you're a Conservative or a Liberal … whether you're a Socialist or a Libertarian … no matter who you are, you're a beloved Child of G-d, and so is your opponent. We'd do well, I think, to remember that during the debate.

$0.02

We Are Not A Chrisitan Nation

Ok, let's just get this out of the way right now. The United States of America is not a Christian nation.

We all know that there are lots of folks who think it is, and we all know that there are lots of folks who wish it was. But it's not.

Feel free to argue, but let me articulate (probably poorly) why this is true.

Sure, we might have the decalogue printed on plaques and pillars which adorn public spaces. Arguably, though, that makes us a Jewish nation, since Christians don't have exclusive (or primary) rights to the Ten Commandments.

So, what would make us a specifically Christian nation? The first place I'd go would be the Gospels … you know, the accounts of the life of Christ. Let's take a look at the Beatitudes (Matthew's Gospel, chapter 5; Luke's Gospel, chapter 6). Blessed are the poor, blessed are the hungry, blessed are the meek, blessed are those who mourn, blessed are the merciful, blessed are the peacemakers.

In our nation, the poor and hungry are more often reviled, looked down on, and dismissed than they are blessed. In our nation, the meek don't get squat – a person has to be aggressive if they want to get anywhere in life.

Further, after some religious extremists attacked the financial and military centers of this country on September 11, 2001, we were most certainly in mourning. What was our response? Did we consider ourselves blessed in our mourning?

We most certainly did not. In fact, our response not been to show mercy; our response has not been to create peace. We pursued, aggressively, individuals and groups who are enemies of our state … and we pursued them whether they had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11 or not.

In the years since that horrendous attack, we did not turn the other cheek. Rather, we poured more and more dollars into the military, killing many more people than would be appropriate even if we followed “an eye for an eye, a life for a life”.

Our foreign and domestic policies are designed to place us in the best position relative to the rest of the world; they are not designed with the best interests of our neighbor in mind, as Luther instructed in the small catechism (now my roots are showing).

There are, I'm sure, many more examples of how we are not a Christian nation. However, there's just one more I want to point out from this coming Sunday's Gospel text. If we were a Christian nation, we would take seriously Christ's instruction to place the little children first and at the center. When social services that help children and their families are cut; when education funding is being cut left and right; when huge percentages of the homeless and hungry are under the age of 18, we cannot say we are placing children first.

We as a nation most certainly do not follow the example of a G-d who allows the death of the divine rather than exert power over the creation.

Now, please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to argue that we, as a nation, have done or are doing anything wrong. Whether we're wrong or right is perhaps a topic for another post.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to be a Christian nation, our national policies should reflect the teachings of Christ – and right now they don't. So let's either change our policies, or admit we're not a Christian nation.

$0.02

Politics

There's a very basic conversation that ought to be happening in our nation these days. It's a conversation centered on whether government ought to be larger and have a more significant role in daily life, or whether government ought to be smaller and have a more limited role.

The trouble right now is that the only potential conversation we're even thinking about having is related to how much we ought to hate the other candidate. I've heard that one of the candidates for president is too wealthy, and therefore out of touch with the realities of the everyday life that most of us live. I've heard that the other candidate hates America, and all of his policies are designed to ruin this great country of ours.

I've heard that both are hypocritical ~ that they make promises they have no intention of keeping. I've heard all these things and more … plus, I've heard similar accusations thrown back and forth about the vice-presidential candidates.

I'm sick of all this accusatory nonsense, and I imagine I'm not the only one.

Part of the problem is that when we hear the major candidates and their surrogates vilifying their opponent, we feel like we have permission to do the same. When our co-worker has a different opinion from ours about foreign policy, or taxation, or abortion, or who ought to have the right to get married ~ when we disagree about anything, we have permission to hate our co-worker.

Obviously we don't actually have permission to hate our neighbor ~ but our political atmosphere seems to tell us that we do.

I would love to have an national conversation about the role of government. I would love for that conversation to be respectful, polite, and rational. I would love for people on opposing sides of that (and any other) issue to recognize that the other person is a real person.

I would love for to recognize the holiness of our opponent ~ in my own Christian language, I would love for us to recognize each other as children of G-d.

I would love for each side to remember, and to believe, that their opponent truly does have the best interest of our nation and of generations to come at heart.

I'm not holding my breath.

$0.02

Church and Politics, Again

The last post on this blog was criticized for being too pious and self-righteous, apparently because I didn't indicate what issue the caller was promoting.  I can see the person's point, even though my intention was simply to steer clear of charged political issues.

I was not attempting to make myself out to be better, or more spiritual, or more pious, or more enlightened than someone else.  I apologize to that person, whoever it is, that was offended by what I wrote.

+++   +++   +++ 

Here, perhaps, is what I should have written about that encounter.

While I was in my office the other day, working on Sunday's sermon and a couple other things, I got a call from a political operative.  This woman, who was very polite (and I presume, kind as well) wanted to know if I would consent to having some petitions available on Sunday morning for the congregation I serve to sign.

The petitions she wanted to bring are in support of the 'personhood amendment' (an amendment which would constitutionally define the beginning of life as the moment of fertilization).  She may not have been, but she seemed baffled that I (a member of the clergy and a student of scripture) would not want to support this amendment.

To tell the truth, I do not support this amendment.  I believe that there are many matters more pressing on us as a society, which (I believe) need to be dealt with before we're ready to broach this subject.

At the same time, if someone were to approach me on the street with this petition, I'd sign it ~ see, I believe that signing a petition in support of having an issue on the ballot is not the same thing as agreeing with the promoters of the petition.

But this is not why I refused to allow these petitions to be available at the congregation I serve.  The reason is that the membership of my congregation has not decided, as a congregation, that we will support this petition.  And to have them available on Sunday morning would imply that we do.

The question that this petition, in support of the 'personhood amendment', addresses is one on which people of deep faith disagree ~ and to have it available at worship would imply congregational support.  I cannot speak on behalf of the congregation I serve on this issue, and so I cannot make this petition available.

Further, the phone-caller did her best to convince me that Jesus would agree with her, and that I was wrong to not let her send these petitions.  She did her best to convince me that Jesus was a political figure, and that I ought to be working politically on behalf of those who can't speak for themselves.

I, for one, am reluctant to state definitively that I know the mind of G-d.  Others, smarter than I, have said that whenever G-d's opinion and mine are always in sync, I've succeeded in making G-d in my image. 

My reading of scripture leads me to believe that there are more important issues to deal with before this one.

According to an article found on Wikipedia, the population of the world reached 1 billion in approximately 1804.  Today, the world's population is over 7 billion.

The truth is that there are issues which are part of our reality today that those who were inspired to write scripture never could have imagined; for instance, overpopulation, globalization, the capacity of the planet to feed everyone who is alive, the degradation of the environment ~ issues that we are only beginning to recognize and which we have not begun to be able to responsibly address.  

In my opinion, questions of poverty and hunger and housing and environmental degradation need to be dealt with soon (before the question of the moment when life begins). 

Additionally, I see the Torah and the Prophets and Jesus talking way more about the injustices of poverty and hunger than I see them talking about the beginning of life. 

You should also know that I don't think my refusal is based on or motivated by my personal opinion that this amendment should not pass.  For instance, I believe that same-gender couples should be allowed to be married.  However, if someone wanted to make a petition available to my congregation that supports an amendment to that effect, I would also not allow that one.

+++   +++   +++

I hope that's satisfactory, Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous.

$0.02

Church and Politics

I just got off the phone with a very polite, and I'm sure nice, woman who wanted to bring petitions by the church building for people to sign.  The change this group is trying to bring about is one I don't happen to agree with ~ but that's not what kept me from going along with her request.  (I've been known to sign petitions that I don't agree with because I believe the issue should be on the ballot.)

When I told her 'no', she couldn't believe that I didn't want those petitions at church.  Further, she seemed astounded that I didn't want my congregation to appear to support one side of an issue on which people of tremendous faith disagree. 

She tried to convince me that Jesus would have been on her side.  She also tried to convince me that Jesus would have (and certainly did) take on the political leaders, and that because he did, we should also.

Well, Jesus certainly did confront the political and religious leaders of his day.  I'm pretty sure, though, that he never tried to pass legislation to impose his religious beliefs on someone else.

I pointed out to my phone-caller that scripture talks way more about poverty than it does about her issue.  I wish I would have thought to say that I'd love to support her cause just as soon as we legislated away hunger, homelessness, and poverty.

I also wish I would have thought to say that I find it dangerous, in a nation that professes freedom of religion, to legislate beliefs.  In fact, imposing religious beliefs on those who aren't part of that religious tradition borders on abuse.

I don't know if that would have helped, though, since I have a feeling she would be comfortable with (her version of) a Christian Theocracy.

$0.02

It's Beginning

The earnest presidential campaign, that is.  Of course, the candidates have already been campaigning, but it's beginning to start to ramp up.  I see this, and I hardly every watch broadcast television.

But despite the fact that I don't watch much TV, I still get to hear some of the rhetoric and the name-calling and the political maneuvering and the criticizing of the other candidate's position on whatever issue.

Most of it bothers me ~ but what might bother me the most is the accusations from one to the other of being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on an issue. 

What bothers me more than the accusations, though, is the reaction of the accused ~ most of the time, the reaction is to try to explain away their previous positions.  I'm sure someone must have done it at some time in politics, but I've never heard a candidate say, "Yes, that was my position at one time.  Now, though, I see things differently.  Let me explain why I've changed my mind, how I've grown, and why I believe my current understanding is better."

Personally, I'd rather elect someone to office who honestly embraces the struggle and the moral uncertainty of real life, and would rather not elect someone who pretends like their positions haven't changed an iota since they were 25 years old. 

Plus, if we were a little more honest and humble about our own position, we might be a little more respectful of someone else's position ~ which just might lead to a growth in civility within our national political discourse.


As I go back and read this post, it seems like perhaps I'm looking and hoping for, dreaming about, honest politicians.  Is it too cynical to say that, perhaps, that's a pipe dream?

$0.02

It's about to begin

Soon enough it will begin.  I'm thinking about the presidential campaign.  Obviously I realize that one party has been campaigning already, working to decide who will be their nominee. 

I paid a little attention to the primary contests, mostly out of curiosity.  It was interesting to watch the potential candidates work to position themselves in what they thought was the best way; working to convince voters which of them would be the best candidate for their party to put forward in the fall. 

Now that most of the doubt about that issue is past, I suspect the two major parties will begin taking earnest and sincere jabs at each other; and I have to say, even before it's really started, I'm kind of sick of the mean things they'll say about each other. 

I'm going to try really hard to not listen.  Except, I will be listening for one particular item.  I'm going to be listening for whether the only Christian values mentioned have to do with sex and marriage.  I don't even care which 'side' talks about sex and marriage, or how they talk about sex and marriage.  I don't care whether I agree with their perspective or not.  I don't want to hear about sex and marriage, particularly as Christian moral issues. 

When it comes to Christian moral issues, I say we should follow the bible.  It's fine to talk about sex and marriage, since the bible talks about sex and marriage.  But the bible also talks about the moral issue of poverty.  In fact, the bible talks about poverty over 2000 times, and about sex only a handful. 

I'm pretty sure, based on the bible, that poverty is a more important moral issue than sex of any variety.  So, let's talk about sex and marriage, but I'll be listening for the candidates to alleviate poverty first (or at least talk about poverty as an issue of faith and morality) ~ that seems biblical to me. 

$0.02

Political Awareness; A Moment in Time

We were on the deck, taking a break from summer camp staff training, when we heard the news. Pouring over the newspaper, my friend made the announcement, and everyone who was there got angry or sad or frustrated or all of those combined. I, however, stood there dumbstruck, not understanding how the 1989 events at Tiananmen Square had any impact on my life.

I still don't understand very well the politics leading up to this incident, and I certainly didn't at the time. What I do remember is being rather startled that people my age were so concerned about what was happening on the other side of the world ~ and my confusion was exacerbated by the fact that we'd just spent a week or more at staff training, almost completely isolated what was happening in the world around us.

Today I follow as closely as possible to what's happening in Washington, the Occupy movement, Tahrir Square and across the middle east, the Mexican border ~ but that day, on the deck, was the first time I began to realize that I should pay attention to what's going on in the world. It's the first time that I internalized the importance of having an opinion, and that my opinion be deeply rooted in my faith. Thanks, fellow summer camp staff, for sharing that piece of your selves.

$0.02

Health Care Rant

I have to say, I'm baffled by the health care conversation in our country (USAmerica) these days.  It looks like the Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue of whether the government can mandate that everyone have health insurance. 

I think we're asking the wrong question.  The essential question, the essential divide in this country that I don't hear many people talking about (and I recognize that I might not be listening in the right places) is the question of whether each person deserves to receive health care as a basic right. 

If we say 'no' ~ if we say that health care is a privilege, and not a basic right ~ then the government has no business being in the health care management business.  The extension of this position is that hospitals should not be required to provide emergency room care to individuals who are not able to pay.  The extension of this argument is that we should require everyone to pay for their care, either out of pocket or through insurance. 

In this case, everyone who is not able to afford (or chooses not to obtain) health insurance, and gets sick, will either lose all their money and be forced to the street, or will chose not to get treated and possibly die of a treatable disease. 

On the other hand, if we say 'yes' ~ if we agree that health care is a right, and that everyone deserves access to medical treatment ~ then it is incumbent on us as a society to provide medical care for everyone in a manner which does not force a choice between food and medicine, or between treatment and housing.

In this case, some will be treated unfairly.  Those of us who are healthy will end up paying more in order that those who are more unhealthy do not become worse-off because of an overwhelming financial burden.  

I, as a Christian, am forced to take the latter position.  It is immoral, and more importantly it is sinful, that we are more concerned about paying less in taxes in order to pad our own bank accounts than we are about our neighbor. 

But even from a purely capitalistic and conservative perspective, corporations providing health insurance (and care) makes no sense.  Right now, I pay for health insurance.  I also pay taxes that eventually go to care for sick and injured and homeless persons who do not have health insurance.  My taxes pay for police officers and fire departments, for social workers and hospitals who care for those without insurance. 

Right now, I'm paying for my own health care and for the health care of those who can't afford it.  But I'm making payments in two different directions ~ one, to the government for taxes; and the other, to insurance and drug companies which seem to report record profits each year. 


So, if we say that health care is not a basic right, then we as a society are saying that the wealthier are more important than the poorer ... we are saying that all people are not created equal.  

If on the other hand, we say that everyone deserves equal access to health care as a right, then the government should be in the business of providing everyone health care.  Sure, it may cost each of us a little more in taxes.  At the same time, we'll no longer need to pay for private insurance.  Plus, when society has access to health care, we end up with a healthier society ~ and that's good for everyone. 

$0.02

Personal Relationships and Government

I heard something disturbing yesterday on a radio talk show.  In an interview, I heard Representative Paul Ryan (R - WI) say something that bothers me a great deal, and that I believe is illustrative of, and contributes to, many of the problems we have in government. 

One of the closing remarks Rep. Ryan made was with regard to a question about how much he has talked with President Obama over the past couple years.  Rep. Ryan responded that he is a policy-maker, and is not interested in personal relationships. 


Here's the thing.  If people don't know each other, if we haven't spent time together socially, then we're much more able to demonize each other.  If, however, we are interested in personal relationships, it's much more difficult to yell nasty things at each other.  If we have had the opportunity to see that the person with whom we disagree is actually a real person (and not simply a set of bad ideas), we will treat them more civilly, and will be able to have an actual conversation instead of a shouting match.

Right now, in our government (and on the internet ... but that's a whole different issue), there are a lot of shouting matches.  If Rep. Ryan was willing to have dinner with President Obama (and vice-versa), maybe they'd figure out that each of them wants what's best for the country.  Maybe they'd figure out a way to actually talk with each other, to work together, and to actually get something productive done in Washington.  Maybe better personal relationships would increase the likelihood that productive policy-making could happen. 

Of course this issue isn't restricted to those two individuals ~ we're all guilty of the same thing. 

$0.02

Idealism and Realism

We need college students. College students are important to our society. Sure, we need them because in future years, they will be taking on the role of leading and managing our society. But we need them now, before they take on as significant role in leadership, social infrastructure, and the economy as they will in the future.

Here's why we need them now. We need their (I know it's cliché) youthful idealism. Society needs their extreme opinions, their firmly-held positions on the so-called right and on the so-called left. We need them to be isolated, to some degree, in the university. We need them to be financially isolated, socially isolated, and philosophically isolated. See, when they're isolated, they're able to view and talk about the world idealistically (instead of realistically). They're able to push the boundaries, to call themselves and others to radical stances and radical actions.

We need these calls from the edges, opinions from the margins. They keep the rest of us honest; they remind the rest of us that what we've come to expect, and what we experience as normal, might not be right.

We do, of course, experience personal and systemic shock whenever the idealistic meets the realistic. It's a shock when idealistic vegetarianism discovered in college meets grandma's thanksgiving dinner. It's a shock when idealistic religious expression discovered in seminary meets a real parish full of real people. It's a shock when idealistic political position meets the real world necessity for compromise, or at least civility.

In this shock, though, is where society has the opportunity to grow. The trouble though, enters in when those who are more grounded in the status quo do not listen to the idealists. If it weren't for some who were willing to listen to wisdom from the fringes, we'd still have institutionalized slavery based on skin color, and women's second-class status would be legal (to name two of the most obvious examples). And if it weren't for those on the fringes being willing to listen to wisdom from the center of society, we'd either all be vegetarian, or there would be oil wells drilled on every other square mile across the country.

The middle needs the fringes (especially those fringes we don't agree with) pushing us to be better. And the fringes need the middle, keeping us sane and civil, and reminding us that we're all in this together.

In my estimation, this is what's missing in our national political conversation these days ~ the fringes aren't willing to listen to wisdom from the center, and the center isn't willing to stand up for what's actually helpful.

$0.02

Sound Bites

"Obama really sucks, doesn't he?"

This is the statement I heard from a woman passing by as I closed the car door at a convenience store parking lot. I was lost in my own world, thinking about where I was going and what was on my agenda for the rest of the day. I was in my wife's car, which (among many others) displays an Obama bumper sticker. I'm sure this is what my passer-by friend has noticed and commented on.

The trouble is that I have no idea what she was talking about. My initial response was to laugh, thinking that her comment was sarcastic. My initial reaction was that her opinion was the same as mine, that so many people complain about the president, even when the work he's doing is commendable. However, before I was out of the parking lot, I had second thoughts about her intent. Perhaps she really doesn't think he's a worthy president, and that she wishes someone else had that office. Then, before I was four blocks down the road, I wondered if she believes his policies are too liberal, or that he's not doing what he promised he would when he was campaigning.

By the time I got to work, I realized what bothers me about that exchange. It's the reality that sound bite exchanges are not conversations.

It seems to me that public discourse in this country has become nothing more than individuals and groups slinging statements at one another. When we do that, it is impossible to have actual conversation.

I would have loved to sit down over coffee and have a real exchange of ideas with this woman. Obviously she has her opinions, but I don't actually know what they are based on a statement made in passing with completely no context. And the only thing she can really assume based on the bumper sticker on the car I was driving is what my preference was in the most recent presidential election.

Real life is more nuanced than sound bites, tweets, and bumper sticker slogans. I wonder what our national life would be like if we had actual conversations ~ you know the kind, where we actually talk with and listen to one another.

$0.02