politics

Bitter? Who, Me?

/ J. Thorp / 3 Comments

Let me get this out of the way right off the bat: I like Barack Obama. A lot, actually. We don’t necessarily agree on all policies all of the time, but I think he wants to serve. And as historic as electing a black president would be, I’m almost as excited about electing a Gen-X president. A little different perspective. A little youthful enthusiasm. A little optimism. And (I hope) a certain disregard for “the system” …

That said, I’m upset with Obama’s “bitter” gaffe. My disappointment, however, less because he characterized small-town folks like me as bitter than because he characterized religious folks and gun-owners as clinging.

Think about the implication there: That middle Americans are somehow so desperate in these dark days, so helpless in these hard times, that we cleave to our faith and our firearms. I agree that his words sounded elitist, as if the educational and economic opportunities afforded to the enlightened city-dwellers on the coasts free them of their need for such quaint notions and frontier relics.

Wasn’t it an old episode of The Outer Limits that featured a man who figured out how to speed his own evolution? Seems like his brain expanded to enormous size, he gained a digit, and he began to pity his poor human companions. Just at the point he feels he must put end their miserable lives out of mercy, he “evolves past violence” and spares them …

I am a church-going gun-owner and a reasonably well-educated voter. I am solidly middle-class, living in a small town that is quickly becoming a suburb. I know times are tight, but also that folks have it tougher than me almost everywhere in the world. I have guns to hunt. And I have faith for the spiritual gifts it brings.

I don’t think that makes me the desperate, clingy sort. On the contrary, I think it’s made me hopeful, helpful, and in some ways, resourceful.

I don’t think Obama meant his words quite the way they sounded, and it’s too bad that our political campaigns turn and turn again on one line, one word, one misstep. But it bothers me that this gaffe has been summarized as “the bitter quote.” “Bitter” wasn’t the half of it!

No Change to Spare …

/ J. Thorp / 2 Comments

This presidential election is said to be about change. Some say nothing ever changes in politics. I tend to be more optimistic than that – but then, these gems:

“The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”

“Do not hold the delusion that your advancement is accomplished by crushing others.”

“When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff.”

“The more laws, the less justice.”

And finally:

“A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?”

All of these nuggests are credited to Marcus Tullius Cicero, who lived from 106 to 43 B.C.

It could be a long millennium …

Tales of the Inexplicably Frightening III

/ J. Thorp / 8 Comments

Heard on the way to work this morning: Numerous pundits and primary voters claiming that, in the past few days, Hillary Clinton has finally shown her humanity and proven she has a soul.

Initial reaction: Shouldn’t one’s humanity and possession of a soul be some sort of baseline requirement for public office, rather than the thing that pushes you over the top?

Current thinking: So along with calculating and ambitious, we get get emotional and fallible — bonus!

Bottom line: Maybe a cold, calculating leader with a commanding presence wouldn’t be so bad — vote Zod in 2008!

War Torn

/ J. Thorp / Leave a comment

I love good silver-screen battle scene. Especially battles that precede the 20th century, when most warriors still had to get up close and personal with their adversaries – and get blood on their hands.

The appeal of such scenes to me isn’t the action and gore, but the courage of conviction in the face of horrific violence they represent. When you are forced to look your enemy in the eye and assess their humanity firsthand before killing him, you best believe in the cause, right?

What our men and women in Iraq are doing requires that same sense of purpose. Think about it: they’re fighting in close urban quarters against an enemy that can only be distinguished from the civilian population with difficulty. According to the few accounts I’ve heard, our soldiers are often making split-second decisions at point-blank range – who to kill, who to let live.

I was talking to this guy on the bus the other day, saying that it seems to me we shouldn’t be surprised that soldiers are returning with mental health issues, given this up-close-and-personal style of combat and the widespread misgivings about the war (if not among the soldiers, at least on the home front).

“It’s tough,” I said. “I mean, regardless of how you feel about the current administration or its policies, the troops have to know that we support them.”

A woman seated in front of me turned around and said she’d done a tour a in Iraq. “It’s extremely important,” she said. “It means a lot to know they have support back home.”

The question then becomes how do you criticize an administration, a policy, or a war while still expressing support for the men and women fighting?

Steve Earle has one answer. On his 2004 release, The Revolution Starts Now, Earle included a spoken-word-over-guitars piece called “The Warrior.” The song, if you can call it that, pays homage to warriors past and present, while holding modern warfare and policy-makers in contempt – and ultimately, holding all of us responsible.

It’s magical, poetic – a tribute to the warrior spirit and a passionate plea for peace. At least that’s how I take it.

What about you? From a practical standpoint, is it possible to openly criticize the policy and still give the troops the moral support they need to face death on daily basis?

The lyrics to “The Warrior” can be found here.

Incidentally, if you ever really get fed up with our current administration, take Pearl Jam’s self-titled release, Green Day’s American Idiot, and selections from Steve Earle’s The Revolution Starts Now (“The Warrior,” “The Gringo’s Tale,” “Home to Houston,” “Rich Man’s War,” and “I Thought You Should Know”) and Jerusalem (“Ashes to Ashes,” “Amerika v.6.0,” “Conspiracy Theory,” “John Walker’s Blues,” “The Truth” and “Jerusalem”), put them on your iPod, and shuffle freely at high volume.

Thoughts on Politics and Principles

/ J. Thorp / 4 Comments

National Public Radio did a segment Monday evening on the possibility that social conservatives could throw their support behind a third-party candidate if Rudy Guiliani becomes the Republican candidate for president.* Why? Because Guiliani supports abortion rights. (Read or listen to the piece here.)

I only caught a portion of the story yesterday, and heard the following quote: “[I]t’s not clear to me how by blowing up the Republican Party and guaranteeing the election of Hillary Clinton – it’s not clear to me how that ends up saving unborn children.”

I went back today and read the complete quote in context – and while I understand what Mr. Bauer is saying, I’m disturbed by his lack of understanding regarding the motivations of his Christian conservative peers.

“Blowing up the Republican Party” won’t save aborted babies – but neither will voting for any of the candidates that support abortion rights. This segment of the voting public – several of whom I know and love – care passionately about this issue and would rather vote their conscience than win.

The fact that such action seems foreign to people is greater reason for concern than anything on the ballot in 2008.

Former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner once said, “America’s greatness has been the greatness of a free people who share certain moral commitments. Freedom without moral commitments is aimless and promptly self-destructive.”

Interestingly (and appropriately, in my opinion), Gardner didn’t say we share religious convictions. “Moral commitments,” I hope, can transcend religion or lack thereof. But the point is that these moral commitments – and the passions and debate they inspire – help to sustain freedom by helping us divine what is to preserved and protected.

Be grateful that your adversaries are people of principle. At least you know where they stand.

——-

* Unfortunately, I don’t think the Viable Third Party fits the bill …