The GOP's Undereducated Spokesmen

There is not a college degree among them.

The only educational credentials that Rush Limbaugh (the alpha voice of the three), Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck stand upon are their high school diplomas. I don't mean to suggest they are not bright enough by most practical measures--and they are clearly very accomplished at what they do--they're just undereducated and lack meaningful experience for the GOP thought-leader roles they pretend to. They are, after all, radio and TV personalities, and they operate principally in the mode of political provocateurs. And however much they enjoy their unofficial roles as the GOP's populist conservative spokesmen, they are first and foremost public entertainers, building and protecting a professional franchise and a loyal, committed audience--and the handsome income, lifestyle, acclaim and notoriety that come with it.

Not one of them has the formal education, training, or professional experience expected of someone aspiring to speak for the philosophy, platform, and values of a major political party. None has an educational foundation or experiential background in economics, finance, government, international or geopolitical affairs, national defense, science, law, taxation and fiscal theory, philosophy or theories of society, or macro- and microeconomic decision making in the public sector. And yet, they confidently, publicly, hold forth on the most important domestic and international issues facing our country.


Rush Limbaugh* graduated from Cape Central High School, in Cape Girardeau, MO, in 1969. At the urging of his parents he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University, but dropped out after two semesters and one summer. His mother is quoted as saying, "he flunked everything," and further, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."

After dropping out of college, Limbaugh moved to McKeesport, PA, where he became a Top 40 music radio disc jockey. Through most of the '70s he moved to different music radio opportunities before settling in Kansas City, MO. In 1979, he took a break from radio and worked as director of promotions for the Kansas City Royals baseball team. Then, in 1984 he returned to radio, but for the first time as a talk show host at KFBK in Sacramento, CA. In 1988, after a very successful stint in Sacramento, he moved to WABC in New York City and the debut of his national radio show that continues to draw the largest and most devoted audience in radio today. It has been reported that his contract calls for him to be paid more than $30 million a year.

More than just an unofficial spokesman for the GOP, in some corners Rush Limbaugh is viewed as the leading voice of the Republican Party. Excepting his own voice, of course, Dick Cheney appears to support that view. An unlikely, amazing success story, but a chilling prospect.


Sean Hannity* graduated from St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary High School in Uniondale, NY, in 1980. He enrolled in and dropped out of both NYU and Adelphi University. Higher education was not for him, either.

Hannity too wanted a career in radio. But before getting his first opportunity at the UC Santa Barbara radio station in 1989, he tried his hand as a contractor and bartender. A controvertial talk radio stint at the UCSB station ended with his termination after some of his comments about gays and lesbians. Ironically, it was the local branch of the ACLU that fought successfully for his reinstatement. Nonetheless, he left and pursued talk radio opportunities in other locations until, in 1996, the new Fox television network hired the unknown talk show host for what would become the Hannity & Colmes show which, with Colmes eventual departure, became the Hannity show. Hannity also now host the Fox network's Hannity's America.

But he has not neglected his career in radio. He now hosts The Sean Hannity Show on ABC Radio and last year drew a national audience of over 13 million devoted listeners a week. It is reported that his radio show alone pays him $5 million a year. An American success story.


Glen Beck* graduated from Sehome High School in Bellingham, WA, in 1982. It is reported that at some point he entered a program for nontraditional students at Yale University while working at a New Haven radio station. He took a single theology course and dropped out, possibly because of his divorce. But that was his one and only brush with higher education.

After graduation from high school, Beck pursued a successful career in music radio as a Top 40 DJ at a succession of radio stations. Then, The Glen Beck Program, a news and political commentary show, was launched in 2000 in Tampa, FL. It's notable success led to a 2002 change in affiliations and his show was broadcast to a national audience. That audience now numbers over 6 million listeners.

And in 2006, TV came knocking on Glen Beck's door, too. It was CNN, where his Glen Beck show was among their most watched shows. And then in 2008, the Fox network offered him a deal to broadcast his show, which was then extended to weekends in 2009. Yes, another success story.


But as successful as these radio and TV personalities have been, they have all lacked a temperament for higher education; they are not suited to it. They prefer to hold forth to their audiences sharing confidently their political views and what they do know based on their self-taught foundations. Then they write books, selling the same opinions to the same audiences. Confidence, however uninformed, and a penchant for populist demagoguery appear their surpassing personal traits. Listen to them and follow them if you must, if that is where you find affirmation and comfort in identity, if that is where you find intellectual security. But understand who they are, and how little they truly have to offer you. And ask yourself whether they represent the intellectual and temperamental high ground of the Republican Party, and why they should be the party's standard bearers. And then you should ask the same questions about Karl Rove.


Karl Rove*, it should be noted, also lacks a temperament for higher education, although he did manage to earn a few courses more than a year's credit at the University of Utah. But at the earliest opportunity, he jumped into developing his life-long craft of aggressive political campaign management and, say many, mastery of the darker political arts. He did enroll in and drop out of colleges a couple times after that, although those occasions appear more related to maintaining his college deferment from the Vietnam war than earning additional course credit.

A protégé of Nixon dirty-trickster Donald Segretty of Watergate fame, Rove also introduced political colleague and fellow campaign operative Lee Atwater to the George H.W. Bush presidential campaign. It was those credentials and that background that lifted him to manage G.W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns. He then served as Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, where he functioned as a freelance political advisor and operative. Today he is a conservative political consultant and another of the GOP's most undereducated and revered spokesmen. And like the three radio and TV personalities--Limbaugh, in particular--he is also one of the GOP's most polarizing individuals.


The reason I make these points is that Americans need to hear the Republican-Democratic debates carried on by the best educated, trained and experienced exponents of each point of view. Both parties represent important ideas and claims that are historical and complementary parts of American life, economics and values. If Americans are to be well informed citizens and voters, we need the most able explanations and defenses of each party's current policy prescriptions for our country. It's that simple. And if that's what the current Republican Party believes we have been offered, then we cannot be surprised that they don't understand why so many have fled them for Independent status or the Democratic Party, why a recent poll found only 21% of American voters now willing to admit being Republicans.

But that is the state of things. Speaking for the Republican Party today are three undereducated radio and TV personalities, an undereducated former political campaign operative and master of misinformation, the discredited Dick Cheney, the Religious Right, and the legacy of George W. Bush. This could be the sad obituary of the GOP. But it doesn't have to be. America still needs to hear credible voices from a modern, inclusive, socially adaptive and politically evolving Republican Party. But there are no such voices being heard.

[*The source for most of the information on individuals named in this piece is Wikipedia and the sources cited therein.]

Kris Kristofferson

I explained that I was born in Austin, Texas, in 1970, to a 20-year-old father who did, and still does, a killer cover of "Me and Bobby McGee." My dad plays the song slower than Janis Joplin did. He pores over the lyrics, enjoying each rhyme, his voice heavy with that song's melancholy sense of loss. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," my dad will repeat, and then often add, "That may be the best song ever written." One Sunday morning, we skipped church to go see an early showing of the film Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. For me, Kris has always been a part of the landscape of my country — an amalgamation of John Wayne and Walt Whitman.

---"The Last Outlaw Poet," by Ethan Hawke, Rolling Stone (4.7.09)

Kris Kristofferson, almost 73. The man himself is a statement for his changing times. The son of an Army major general. A high school and college athlete. Graduated summa cum laude, Pomona College. A Phi Beta Kappan. A Rhodes Scholar. A captain in the Army, ranger and helicopter pilot. Gave up the Army for Nashville. An accomplished songwriter and singer. Three Grammy awards. An accomplished actor and activist. A personal life of notable highs and lows. Changed with his times, followed his muse, made his statements.

This article in Rolling Stone by Nathan Hawke is a great reminder of one of America's originals.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/27113898/the_last_outlaw_poet/2

Health Care Access: Just Another Reason

Even as rising unemployment strips people of health insurance, sending many to emergency departments for care, doctors on the front lines say the lingering recession is also prompting an unexpected outcome. More patients, they say, are refusing potentially costly procedures ranging from tests to confirm heart attacks to overnight stays to monitor dangerous infections....

---"Too broke for the ER, patients flee," msnbc.com

This deep recession, the resulting job losses, and the fear of unaffordable medical costs has caused more care seekers to leave ERs or hospitals "against medical advice," doctors say. And how many more are not showing up at ERs at all for the same reasons? Just one more reason why now is the time for health care reform and access for all. For what kinds of problems are these people turning down treatment? From the article:

Just last month, Laskey saw a woman with bronchitis and pneumonia with life-threatening oxygen levels who refused hospital admission because she had no insurance. Even when Laskey arranged for her to have an oxygen kit to take home, the woman turned it down because of the cost....Just this month, Chawla, a spokesperson for the American College of Emergency Physicians, said he argued with a man who refused hospitalization to drain a large abscess on his buttocks; another man who declined admission for an infected kidney stone; a woman with low-risk chest pain who didn’t want to pay for further cardiac exams; and a patient with acute appendicitis who needed emergency surgery but didn’t want to pay for an ambulance.

But for the turns of fortune or fate, it could just as easily be you or me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30628634/

Klein: Health Care's Moment? A Question of Pragmatism

The early headlines have been all about the President's efforts to repair the financial system and jump-start the economy. If he succeeds, he probably will be re-elected. But Barack Obama's place in history will be determined by the long-term structural changes he initiates, and his most important legacy battle is just beginning as Congress tackles the holy grail of modern liberalism, a universal health-care system.

---"The Fire This Time: Is This Health Care's Moment?" Joe Klein, Time (5.07.09)

Time columnist Joe Klein focuses the political spotlight on the backstage Obama initiative that will likely be the measure of his social policy legacy. And, along with his management of the economic crisis, foreign policy and foreign conflicts, too, it will be a determinant of his place in history. That initiative for national healthcare reform and universal access is now moving forward. And Obama, understanding full well the opportunity and the stakes, the previous failures, and the political minefield he must negotiate, has employed a patient, careful, and pragmatic approach to the legislative challenge. Klein, on where we are:

In the 2008 campaign, Obama and Clinton worked overtime to assure voters that if they liked their current health-care coverage, they could keep it — that is, the system would remain a private one, presided over by a more strictly regulated insurance industry. And in the months since the election, the insurers have indicated that they will play ball: they've said they will cover everyone, at the same rate, regardless of pre-existing condition. (There are caveats: the details of health insurance are devilish, and pitched battles are fought over arcana too obscure to cover in this space.) But more-liberal Democrats have decided to press the issue. They have proposed a "public" health-insurance option, similar to Medicare. They argue, correctly, that the profits made by insurance companies are a good part of what makes health care so expensive in the U.S. and that a public option is needed to keep the insurers honest. Needless to say, the insurers are vehemently opposed to this and will unleash a torrent of negative advertising and lobbying power if the final bill includes it.

So, now there must be fashioned practical, cost effective program priciples and decision making citeria. The critical economic and societal trade-offs must be wisely, bravely settled upon in setting rules governing what is covered under what conditions. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and the program rules, as well as the principles, must assure a fair, cost-effective health services program. Klein, on next steps:

But the question of whether the government can decide which health-care treatments are appropriate is central to whether an affordable universal system can be devised. Part of the answer is implicit in the electronic medical-records system that Obama has proposed: it will be easier to determine which treatments are cheaper and more effective. The other part of the answer involves an essential change in Medicare, from fee-for-service to a managed-care system that decides whether a hip replacement is necessary for a terminal cancer patient.

But in the end, it is about how well the issue is set up politically, how much negotiating room is created and preserved, and how pragmatically, effectively, a workable program can then be moved to "yes." Klein, on a likely end-game:

My guess is that the public option is a bargaining chip that will be cashed in to gain support from moderate Republicans and Democrats as crunch time approaches. The real battle, and the fate of this liberal dream, will be fought over what gets covered and who decides.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896574,00.html

The Economist: On the Stress Test of Banks

The stress tests have worked in one sense. They have produced a credible estimate of the likely losses banks will face. But the second part of the test—establishing a buffer big enough to allow banks to absorb those losses and command confidence without state support—looks to have been fudged. It is still hard to imagine the banking system being able to stand on its own two feet without explicit state guarantees of debt issuance and the implicit understanding that the government would step in again. As Mr Geithner admitted, we are only in the "early stages of repair." The mechanics should keep their spanners at the ready.

---"Stresses and strains," The Economist (5.08.09)

If you are still trying to understand what the so-called "stress test" of major US banks is all about, trying to put the various pieces together, a recent edition of The Economist adds another piece or two along with their concerns. It is worth the read. But they miss or fail to acknowledge the principal reason for the stress tests: to raise public trust and confidence in the financial system, and investor optimism about investing in the financial sector. And that appears to have been a success. Financial stocks along with the stock market generally have risen notably.

But I too have heard and read the concerns about whether one or the other of the assumptions was demanding or distressed enough. I have seen Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's frustrated pleas that the assumptions of the stress tests are fully adequate for the banks, the government, and the public to understand the general condition of various major banks--and what a reasonable level of capital might be for each. But what is most important to the banks is not whether the stress test assumptions on needed capital are perfectly accurate or would provide a conservative enough cushion. No one knows better than the banks themselves what their loan losses could potentially be. And they know just as well the level of capital that will likely be required to absorb those losses.

No, what the banks need is a more trusting and confident investor public, an investor public ready to see the market situation today as an investment opportunity. And if the government assumptions and findings are roughly in the ball park, then that is likely all the "street" is reasonably looking for. Then the banks will again be able to access the public markets to raise needed capital, as many of them are now starting to do.

This has always been what the stess tests were about. And does anyone doubt that the government will still be there to guarantee the debt of any too-big-to-fail bank that may not be able to successfully raise enough capital independently? Fed Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Geithner's recent comments and written disclosures make clear that they will be. So far, so good.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13635450&fsrc=nwl

And Bernanke, Too: His Testimony on the Economy

We are hopeful that the very sharp decline we saw even last fall and early this year will moderate considerably in the near term and we'll see positive growth by the end of the year.

--Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress (5.5.09), Reuters

Only a couple days after Warren Buffet's optimistic comments, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's testimony to Congress followed in the same optimistic spirit, but with the same cautionary, qualifying comments, underestandably. But he also addressed more economic topics and covered the ground in greater depth:

BERNANKE ON STATE OF FINANCIAL SYSTEM

I think we're in far better shape today than we were in September and October. While I know there are many critics of the TARP ... I do believe that availability of that capital helped us dodge what would have been a truly cataclysmic collapse of the global banking system, which would have had terrifically bad effects on the U.S. economy...

I think we've made a lot of progress. The financial markets are still fragile, we don't want to take anything for granted, but we have, I think, come a long way since last fall.

BERNANKE ON COMMITMENT TO PRICE STABILITY AND FED INDEPENDENCE

We are very committed to price stability. We have recently provided projections which suggest how we plan to approach medium-term price stability and given information on what we think inflation ought to be in the medium term. We firmly believe that we will be able to, after stimulating the economy to help it recover from this very difficult financial and economic situation we are in, come to a situation where we will emerge with sustainable growth and price stability. We are spending enormous amounts of time planning that and thinking about our exit strategy. I would also take great exception to the notion that the Fed has sacrificed its independence. The critical element of Fed independence is monetary policy and it has remained completely independent of all other government institutions. We have not sought advice or input on any aspects of monetary policy. That remains completely independent and it will remain independent.

BERNANKE ON CONFIDENCE IN U.S. DEBT

Senator, it's U.S. government debt bearing yields which are I think indicative of confidence. The relatively low yields that you see on 10-year and even 30-year debt suggests that investors in those securities, first of all appreciate the liquidity and safety of those securities, and secondly that they are confident that the U.S. will have low inflation and fiscal stability in the long term. Having said that, it's imperative on all of us as the policy-makers, particularly the Congress, which is responsible for fiscal policy, to make sure that we do achieve the necessary stabilization that will allow deficits to come down and allow us to deal with those issues. So, there's confidence in the market that we'll deal with those problems, and we must fulfill that confidence.

BERNANKE ON INFLATION RISKS

I just want to assure the American people that we are very focused, like a laser beam if I may, on this issue of making sure we have price stability in the medium term and that we are working very hard to make sure that, while on the one hand, it's very important for us to provide a lot of support for this economy right now because it needs support...at the same time we understand the necessity of winding this down in a orderly way at the appropriate moment so we will not have an inflation problem on the other side.

BERNANKE OF SAFETY OF FED LENDING

I'd first like to draw a very strong distinction between fiscal spending and the Fed's lending programs. Our lending programs are just that. They're lending programs, and with the exception of some of the things involved with AIG and that kind of thing, which is less than 5 percent of our balance sheet, the whole bulk of all those programs are very safe. They will be repaid with interest. We are making money for the Treasury.

There's a difference between spending money and lending it out and getting it back with interest.

And there is more commentary on the bank stress tests, and banks' sources of additional capital where needed, both private and government.

It's true that the economic environment is not good for most people right now. But I am comforted by the comments of Buffet and Bernanke, the world's best mind on the economy and business from an investment perspective and, perhaps, the most knowledgeable and experienced scholar and government economist in the world on the errors of the Great Depression and the many smaller-scale financial disasters and collapses in the years since then. No one knows more about how best to avoid those problems or manage through them. As difficult and uneven as the process has occasionally been in a volatile political environment, I can think of no one I'd rather have at the center of this management challenge than an independent Ben Bernanke.

The text of the Chairman's complete statement to the Joint Economic Committee can be read on the web site of the Board of Governers of the Federal Reserve System.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNes/idUKN0546003320090505
http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20090505a.htm

Buffet: Government is Doing the Right Thing; Most Banks Not Too Big to Fail; Recession Ending

OMAHA, Neb. - Billionaire Warren Buffett said Saturday that the U.S. government is taking the correct actions to help the economy recover. Buffett spoke briefly before the opening of the annual meeting for his Berkshire Hathaway Inc., expected to draw an audience of roughly 35,000 people.

"The government is doing the right things," Buffett said. "They're acting in a countercyclical manner." But Buffett said he can't predict how quickly the economy and the markets will improve.

---"Buffet: Government is doing the right thing," Associated Press, msnbc.com (5.03.09)

And the next day, he held forth on the recession and the "stress test" on banks:

OMAHA, Nebraska - Billionaire Warren Buffett says the latest recession really shook up Americans' confidence but he sees the economic slide ending. [But] the head of Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. said Monday that he can't predict how quickly the economy will improve....

Addressing the bank "stress tests" due to be released this week, Buffett said most of the banks the U.S. government is evaluating with stress tests are not too big to fail. Buffett says he's not sure how the government will handle the situation when the results are released, but he doesn't think the government should rule out the failure of most of the banks. Buffett said all but the four biggest banks the government is examining could be sold and should not be considered too big to fail.

---Buffet sees economic slide ending," Associated Press, msnbc.com (5.4.09)

So, let's see, Warren Buffet thinks the Obama economic team are doing the right thing with TARP, the stimulus package and other economic stimulus and remedial programs. (And in a 4.04.09 cnbc interview he accepts that the associated debt levels and implications will be challenging, likely inflationary, and notes matter-of-factly and without concern that significant additional taxes will have to be raised--and clearly implies that in all this we have had no choice.) And as to the results of the government "stress test" on banks, he says any banks but the four largest should be allowed to fail and could be sold. Of course, that would allow large, sound banks like Wells Fargo, in which Mr. Buffet has a substantial investment interest, to buy those failed banks. Yes, it is a self-serving prescription. But that's alright; it is also balanced and likely right. So far so good.

He also sees signs that the recession is ending, although he won't or can't predict when economic recovery will begin or how quickly it will improve. (Although in the same cnbc interview, he stresses how optimistic he is about recovery and the future strength of the economy.) Okay, Mr. Buffet, I think I've got it. And that works for me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30532962/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30547579/

On Muslim-Americans; Understanding Jihad: An Article, Commentary

From a recent article in Newsweek:

I thought back to an awkward experience I had as an undergraduate student applying for a job at my university. When I handed the receptionist at the student union my Social Security card, a required form of identification, she told me she needed my passport as well. Surprised, I questioned the need for it. She brought over her supervisor, who glanced at my hijab—a headscarf worn by many Muslim women—and asked, "Aren't you an international student?" "No," I said. "I'm an American citizen. I was born in New Jersey." Her mouth dropped open and she stammered, "Oh, you're not a foreigner?"

...That's why Obama's decision to visit a Muslim country within the first 100 days of his presidency was such a significant moment for me. Hearing his unwavering, unapologetic message to the Turkish Parliament filled me with pride: yes, he told the world, Muslim Americans exist, and our existence has enriched—not impoverished—American culture. His words mirrored what I have long sought to convey to other Americans: that you can be both a devout Muslim and a patriotic American.

I can only hope my fellow citizens get the message. When many Americans see Muslims like me, they tend to define us as something non-American, which forces us to choose between our religion and nationality. As long as Islam is equated with a foreign culture, as opposed to a faith like any other practiced here, then our mosques and our schools and our headscarves will continue to be perceived as a rejection of "American culture." This idea of Muslims as "other" surfaces every time someone like my friend Kathy, a veil-wearing Muslim American, is told to "go back home" when she and her daughter eat at Subway, or when a man plows his truck into a Tallahassee, Fla., mosque to remind Muslims they're not safe in this country...

I have learned to go out of my way to confront the stereotypes brought to the surface by my headscarf. At times, that has meant speaking out in public forums. At other times, it has meant striking up a conversation with anyone who passes by as I walk my baby through our neighborhood. I have learned through personal experience that interaction and kindness can go a long way toward knocking down barriers.

Obama's gestures make me feel empowered to do more. His words and deeds have given me cause to believe that someday soon, people will look at me and, instead of seeing a woman with a headscarf, they'll see another American, just like them.

Hadia Mubarak is a doctoral student of Islamic studies at Georgetown University and a panelist for the Washington Post/NEWSWEEK On Faith Web site.

---"As American as Apple Pie," Newsweek (5.4.09)

If you are moved by the feelings of this sensitive, thoughtful American, you are right to react that way. And Ms. Mubarak is quite representative of Muslims in America. She is not an exception. You can readily tell from her heart-felt remarks that she identifies as an American, even if other Americans make that difficult--and she longs to be embraced by the broader, diverse American public as part of another rich tapestry in the expansive fabric of American society.

A recent e-mail message that came to us via a group distribution depicted the Muslim faith--and therefore Muslim-Americans--in misleading, disparaging, unjust terms. As someone who studied the Islamic faith (among others) as a young man in his search for God, I was quite sure that e-mail representation was misleading and unfair. But I did some google research of reliable sites which provided a useful refresher and update.

Much of the problem and the misrepresentation related to the meaning of the word "jihad" and its implications. The principles of jihad are much misunderstood by most non-Muslims, and particularly by Westerners in this time of "jihadist" terrorism. And like most Americans, the author of that e-mail badly misrepresented its principal meaning and implications for religious and civil life among most Muslims today.

The word jihad means "struggle," and it is commonly used in the Quran and Muslim religious life in the sense of "striving in the way of Allah [God]" or the "struggle to improve oneself and society." But tradition, and the religious sayings of the Muslim Hadith, do ascribe to Muhammad a distinction made between the Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad.

The Greater Jihad is the "jihad of the soul," and, as the Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub is quoted, "The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living)." Some point out that the Greater Jihad can be compared spiritually with the struggle that Christians undertake in resisting sin: temptation, selfishness, pride, disbelief, etc. Others add that it is about holding fast against any ideas and practices that run contrary to Muhammad's revelations (Quran), sayings (Hadith) and the examples set by how he lived his life (Sunnah). This is the most meaningful principle of jihad in the active religious and community life of the vast majority of Muslims, including Muslim-Americans. It is not in any way related to any kind of armed conflict. This is the principle of jihad passionately explained to me and embraced by an understandably distressed Muslim-American classmate after 9/11.

On the other hand, the Lesser Jihad addresses the circumstances, conditions and rules for defense and warfare under Islamic law. And yes, this is the jihad you think you understand. But do you? It may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, non-Islamic leaders or non-Muslim combatants. And it doesn't have to include armed conflict; it could be acts of civil disobedience. The rules do not allow killing women, children and non-combatants, nor damaging cultivated or residential areas. Modern Muslims have taken the further step of revisiting the interpretation of Islamic sources, and now stress that jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam. And all authorities agree it includes armed struggle against persecution and oppression.

You may have noticed that the Islamist jihadists that have authored the terrorist acts in the US and across the world have acted and lived notably outside the Islamic rules governing a defensible act covered by the principle of the Lesser Jihad. That is because they operate outside both the civil and spiritual boundaries of mainstream Islam. They are renegade terrorist elements and a law unto themselves. They certainly do not represent the vast majority of Muslims. Now, isn't it important to recognize that?

It might also be important to mention that the Quran clearly reflects Muhammad's admonition to respect and honor other "people of the book." Narrowly speaking, he meant people of the other Abrahamic faiths: Jews and Christians. Sufi poets of the Middle Ages occasionally referred to "the Christ" in respectful, holy terms. And today most mainstream Muslims extend that respect to other faiths as well. But if Islamist extremists do not honor that element of the Quran either, can we be surprised? For they rationalize their criminal behavior, in part at least, as a response to Middle Ages and latter day Christian Crusaders--a reference to the "holy wars" initially prosecuted by "Christians" who had lost any meaningful sense of Christian identity and purpose, and the more modern expressions of Western hegemony. Ironically, then, we now have Islamist extremists who have lost any meaningful sense of Muslim identity and purpose prosecuting their armed response to the Crusades and Western dominance with their self-stylized version of jihadist "holy war."

Now, remind me why it is that the criminal agenda of these miscreants has anything to do with how we view and respond to honorable Muslim-Americans who respect people of other faiths?

But you still remain concerned about language in the Quran, don't you? You likely find it difficult to reconcile the more bellicose, violent or punitive elements of the Quran with the more spiritual elements of it--and then you wonder how the behavior of observant Muslims might be influenced by that more troubling language? I suggest that you have the best answer to that concern right in front of you--if you are looking in the mirror, that is. I suggest you consider how you would reconcile the war-prone, vengeful, violent and punitive elements of the Old Testament with your modern understandings about spiritual life--and explain why non-Christians and non-Jews should not be concerned about how an observant Christian or Jew might be influenced by them today. Should they be concerned that you might be more likely to take an offending, wayward daughter to the gates of the city to be stoned, or expect them to? Or more likely to wage war against a nonbelieving country? (And remember, as we have noted, that New Testament "Christians" have also done that--and it was Muslims who we waged war against.) These are what are called rhetorical questions, of course--so why am I concerned about your answers?

So, if we can possibly carry reason, fairness, and Biblical or Christian principles as our standards, then can't we, shouldn't we, make the simple and fair distinction between terrorist criminals who call themselves Islamic Jihadists and the Muslim mainstream that act and deserve to be treated like the respectful neighbors they are--and especially here in America. I would think so.

In closing, it is worth noting again that in practice the Islamic principle of the Lesser Jihad, armed holy conflict, is not a principle that finds active expression in mainstream Islamic communities in America and the West. It is the Greater Jihad, jihad of the soul, that focuses their lives. Like Ms. Mubarak, all the Muslims I have known or now know have represented their faith with thoughtfulness and kindness, and their American citizenship with pride.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/195084

Finding or Not Finding Spiritual Growth

The reasons behind the swap depend greatly on whether one grows up kneeling at Roman Catholic Mass, praying in a Protestant pew or occupied with nonreligious pursuits, according to a report issued Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

While Catholics are more likely to leave the church because they stopped believing its teachings, many Protestants are driven to trade one Protestant denomination or affiliation for another because of changed life circumstances, the survey found....

The report estimates that between 47 percent and 59 percent of U.S. adults have changed affiliation at least once. Most described just gradually drifting away from their childhood faith.

"This shows a sort of religion a la carte and how pervasive it is," said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion. "In some ways, it's an indictment of organized Christianity. It suggests there's a big open door for newcomers, but a wide back door where people are leaving.

--"Survey: Americans switch faiths often," Associated Press, msnbc

Seekers are what all Christians--and all spiritual folk, for that matter--should be. We are invited by our reverenced Scriptures, and the Spirit that speaks to us in our quiet time with God, to be constantly evolving, changing, becoming that "new person in Christ," even "lost with Christ in God." So why should we be at all surprised that people feel called to set out anew in search of that spiritual place and identity best suited to lead them on the next steps of their spiritual journey?

Certainly it is understandable for those leaving the spiritual nest of their early faith life, and those who have moved to a new geographical location. And it is the necessary next step, of course, for those who are for the first time responding to a spiritual disposition to find God or are returning to relationship with Him. But it is also necessary for those who have been in some religious communities too long, so long that spiritual growth and change are now limited by the identity and lack of openness of that faith community. These are the more difficult, painful situations for all involved, but it is equally important for the seeker to move on from there, too.

From my essay "Getting Out," in the Beyond Life's Boxes series:

But to entertain change, to qualify or broaden your perspective, is not often encouraged or even abided. The limits and rigidities of most people’s emotional need for others’ unchanging identity, the need to define prevailing orthodoxy, those conforming and nonconforming, creates an ideological, philosophical and theological firewall which excludes truly open-minded inquiry, analysis and exchange.

And so, most cannot comfortably abide change in others—not without a sense of breach of faith or broken trust, that is. To grow further always seems to require a change in identity, an element of abandonment, pure and simple. That’s just life in those boxes. Change brings marginalization, and notable change, alienation. There is nowhere to go but out and away. And the relationships, at least anything enduring about them, often ends there, too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30438969/

Specter Moves to Democratic Party

"This is a painful decision," said Specter at a Tuesday afternoon news conference. "I know that I'm disappointing a lot of my friends and colleagues...[but] the disappointment runs in both directions."

Specter, 79, a veteran of 29 years in the Senate, has found his [Republican] party dominated by conservatives and himself becoming one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining among the 535 members of Congress.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to politics in his home state, Pennsylvania, and confirmed by his office.

--"Veteran GOP Sen. Specter switches parties," NBC News

And so say many of us who have been philosophically moved to claim independent voter status or affiliate with the Democratic Party over the last eight years. Welcome, Senator Specter. And we welcome the prospect of a 60th vote, if needed, on important legislation such as healthcare access and reform.

Articles, Opinions: China's Way Forward, The US Response

Idle factories, moored container ships, widespread bankruptcies, massive migration back to the hinterlands, strangely clean air—the signs of depression are everywhere in China. Because it makes so many of the goods the world isn't buying now, China stands to be worse hit than the rest of the world —just as America was during the Depression, when it was the world's sweatshop. But like America then, China will use tough times to design innovative products that will get it the high profits and the high-value jobs Americans kept to themselves for decades. And that is very bad news for the United States, unless it uses tough times to reinvent itself, too....

Outsiders can rightly criticize the Chinese government if it tries to sneak in new export subsidies or push the RMB's value back down. But no one can criticize its ambition to increase the rewards for its people's work. Many Chinese companies will fail or make mistakes under today's intense pressure. But many are using the moment to prepare for their next advance. The question for Americans to think about is how we are using the same moment.

---"Interesting Times," by James Fallows, The Atlantic (April 2009)

A very good article. This Atlantic cover piece provides a broad, realistic perspective on China's struggle with this deep, global recession: suffering the deepest unemployment impact, protecting its sizable, favorable trade balance, and using this time of national stress and international weakness as an opportunity to strengthen its relative economic place and role in the world. James Fallows, a long-time China observer, visitor, and correspondent for The Atlantic, brings his substantial experience and understanding of China to this matter-of-fact treatment of China's unique challenges and opportunities.

A recent Washington Post article, "China Uses Global Crisis to Assert Its Influence," looks from the outside at China's emboldened international posture. Rather than defensively drawing within itself during this time of extraordinary economic challenge, it is now openly and confidently exercising a critical voice on issues of self-interest, and increasingly, opportunisticly claiming a place of financial leadership in a struggling world. From the Post article:

Overseas aid and loans are just one way China is asserting itself in its new role as a world financial leader. While polishing China's own image, Premier Wen Jiabao and other top leaders have blamed the West for the global economic crisis. Chinese officials increasingly are challenging the primacy of the dollar, warning other countries about the danger of keeping reserves in just one or two currencies, such as dollars and euros. And as the global economic crisis has eroded faith in U.S.-style capitalism, there's growing talk that a new "Beijing Consensus" will replace the long-dominant Washington Consensus on how developing countries should manage their economies.

The current edition of Foreign Affairs also leads with two interesting opinion pieces written under the heading, "The China Challenge." The first is "The G-2 Mirage: Why the United States and China Are Not Ready to Upgrade Ties," by Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal. It argues that the opportunities for a stronger China-US bilateral relationship are limited by their different circumstantial interests and dictates, and that only inviting broader multilateral relationships can move China and the US forward together. From the article:

Calling on the United States and China to do more together has an undeniable logic. Both Washington and Beijing are destined to fail if they attempt to confront the world's problems alone, and the current bilateral relationship is not getting the job done. Real coordination on trade and currency reform remains stunted, both sides lag behind the rest of the world in addressing climate change, and meaningful partnership on global challenges -- from food safety to nuclear proliferation -- is limited.

But elevating the bilateral relationship is not the solution. It will raise expectations for a level of partnership that cannot be met and exacerbate the very real differences that still exist between Washington and Beijing. The current lack of U.S.-Chinese cooperation does not stem from a failure on Washington's part to recognize how much China matters, nor is it the result of leaders ignoring the bilateral relationship. It derives from mismatched interests, values, and capabilities.

The United States must accordingly resist the temptation to initiate a high-profile, high-stakes bilateral dialogue and instead embrace a far more flexible, multilateral approach to China. In other words, Obama should continue to work with China in order to address global problems, but he also needs to enlist the world to deal with the problems created by the rise of China.

The second Foreign Affairs piece is, "Deng Undone: The Cost of Halting Market Reform in China," by Derek Scissors. It takes a different tack. Staying with a bilateral model, Scissors argues for dialing back the unworkable scope of the US agenda for further reforming China's market economy, and focusing on a few important issues and pressing them aggressively. From Mr. Scissors:

The Chinese Communist Party no longer sees the pursuit of further genuine market-oriented reform as being in its interest. The burst of growth that the economy exhibited after the initial state-directed stimulus convinced the CCP that true liberalization is now unnecessary as well as sometimes painful. Whatever the objectives of the Obama administration, it must realize that it will be difficult to change Beijing's views quickly. True broad-based market-oriented reform in China should remain a long-term goal of U.S. economic policy. But for now, the Obama administration would do better to focus its economic diplomacy on evaluating and responding to the Chinese government's strategy of aggressively promoting state-led growth. It should not presume that Beijing will return to market reform anytime soon.

The U.S. government cannot afford to get this wrong. Because of the increasing pressure of the global economic crisis, some have called for a policy of partial disengagement. But the U.S.-Chinese relationship is the most important bilateral economic relationship in the world....Even incremental improvement in a relationship of this magnitude would have a large economic payoff, all the more so given the recent collapse of the global financial system.

And so he must engage China--only he [Obama] must do so while reorienting U.S.-Chinese trade policy in light of Beijing's lack of interest in discussing issues such as its subsidization of state enterprises and its apparent decision to halt market-oriented reform. Washington should encourage the Chinese to focus on a narrow range of feasible measures. Energy, the environment, and bilateral investment are fine topics for bilateral negotiations, but the agenda should be restructured to emphasize a series of meaningful reforms designed to, for example, liberalize prices, curb state dominance in corporations, shield U.S. companies from mercantilist measures, and allow money to move freely in and out of China.

So, despite their suffering at this time, China continues to assert itself, plan its continuing growth, and reach for international leadership. The Atlantic's Fallows dispassionately provides the more clear-eyed view of China, as it is, and where it is likely headed. While the Foreign Affairs article by Scissors acknowledges US failure to influence further market reforms in China, it presumes that market reform should continue to be our principal goal, and that we should pursue it aggressively. Although, he counsels, any near-term success will require paring significantly our economic reform agenda.

Understandably, but unrealistically, Scissors appears to presume that it is China's place to be more accomodating of US interests, geopolitically and economicly. After all, shouldn't China understand that that is the order of things? He does not appear moved by the reality that China understands full well where it's economic policy interests lie, and what the changes or reforms advocated by the US will mean for them, plus and minus, now and later. China's leadership is very astute about such things. And they do take the long view: politically, geopolitically and economically--and that means decades, not just the next economic or business cycle.

China will proceed in advancing their markets, businesses and higher-value employment, but only as fast and as far as it serves the evolving interest and preserves the advantage of China and its people--as they see it. More respect, patience and resilience might serve the US better at this point, more balanced realpolitik. Economy's and Segal's multilateral approach to working with China reflects the wisdom of practical reality. Only a multilateral approach will likely be effective with many issues; although, we will necessarily have to work some mutual issues on a bilateral basis. And that real-world approach would also encorporate Scissors' practical observation about a short list of issues for economic diplomacy.

But, whatever our agenda and tactics, we must approach those issues with Fallows' respect for China as it is today: their abundant strengths, considerable needs, their ascendant future--and their soverign sense of destiny in plotting their future in accordance with their view of their best interests. And then there's Fallow's question: is the US using this period of both weakness and opportunity to prepare and strengthen us for a changing international economy and geopolitical landscape, and our role in it? Embracing significant change will be, must be, our future, too.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/chinese-innovation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203823.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64946/elizabeth-c-economy-and-adam-segal/the-g-2-mirage

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64947/derek-scissors/deng-undone

Perspective, Finally: The End of Excess

This is an article worth reading. All of it.

It is a Time article, "The End of Excess: Is This Crisis Good for America?" (The print version is titled, "That Was Then...and This is Now.") And it is worth the read, whatever your politics or views.

I've selected some excerpts, but there is just no way I can do justice to the scope of this article that way. And I've doubtless selected ones that appeal most to me. But there is much more. This is a big-picture piece, a perspective piece, that really helps readers see the broader, historical context and evolving social and economic factors behind it all--how we got where we are, and where we are likely headed.

We saw what was happening for years, for decades, but we ignored it or shrugged it off, preferring to imagine that we weren't really headed over the falls. The U.S. auto industry has been in deep trouble for more than a quarter-century. The median household income has been steadily declining this century ... but, but, but our houses and our 401(k)s were ballooning in value, right? Even smart, proudly rational people engaged in magical thinking, acting as if the new power of the Internet and its New Economy would miraculously make everything copacetic again. We all clapped our hands and believed in fairies.

...We knew, in our heart of hearts, that something had to give. Remember when each decade, not long after it finished, assumed a distinct character? ...But in all salient respects, "the '80s" — Reaganism's reshaping of the political economy, the thrall of the PC, the vertiginous rise in the stock market — did not end. The '80s spirit endured through the '90s and the 2000s, all the way until the fall of 2008, like an awesome winning streak in Vegas that went on and on and on....Even if deep down everyone knew that the spiral of overleveraging and overspending and the prices of stocks and houses were unsustainable, no one wanted to be a buzz kill.

But now everything really has changed....The party is finally, definitely over....Those of us old enough to remember life before the 26-year-long spree began will probably spend the rest of our lives dealing with its consequences — in economics, foreign policy, culture, politics, the warp and woof of our daily lives...

All that conventional wisdom about 2008 being a "change" year? We had no idea. Recently Rush Limbaugh appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, panicking not so much about the economy but about how the political winds are blowing as a result. If we finally manage to achieve something like universal health care, Limbaugh warned, it would mean "the end of America as we know it." He's right, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is the end of the world as we've known it. But it isn't the end of the world....

We'll see soon enough how well President Barack Obama copes, but long before the collapse, he clearly sensed the nature of the historical moment. His Democratic opponents were all over him a year ago when he gave the Reagan Revolution its due, but he was exactly right: "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America ... He tapped into what people were already feeling ... [He] transformed American politics and set the agenda for a long time ... In political terms, we may be in one of those moments where we can get a seismic shift in how the country views itself and our future. And we have to take advantage of that."

...A big reason for Obama's election and high approval ratings is his privileging of the empirical and pragmatic ahead of ideological reflex. We have not, of course, arrived in a golden age of fair-minded, intellectually honest postpartisanship, as proved by the congressional votes on the stimulus package and the redoubled ferocity of brain-dead partisans. But a majority of Americans out in America are dialing back or turning off their ideological autopilots, thanks to the economic crises, Obama's approach and the post–Cold War realities...But with the economy in uncharted territory, we'll come to recognize that party-line adherence to old political convictions won't provide any easy way out....

If you want to feel encouraged about our economic near future...ignore the stock traders and go talk to some venture capitalists.... [T]hey are optimistic about an imminent tide of innovations in technology, energy and transportation.... The next transformative, moneymaking technologies and businesses are no doubt coming soon to a garage near you....This is the moment for business to think different and think big. The great dying off of quintessentially 20th century businesses presents vast opportunity for entrepreneurs....[T]hey will have a clearer field in which to grow....

In fact, we surely will have to adjust the ways we think of ourselves. Still an exceptional country, absolutely, but not a magical one exempt from the laws of economic and geopolitical gravity. A nation with plenty of mojo left, sure, but in our 3rd century, informed by the wisdom of middle age a little more than the pedal-to-the-metal madness of youth....

But do read the whole article. It is worth the time.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887728,00.html

And Immigration, Too

AMERICA receives more immigrants than any other country. But its system for dealing with them is a model of dysfunctionality, with 11.9m illegally present in 2008, up 42% since 2000. Past efforts at reform have failed dismally. In 2006 protesters filled city streets after the House of Representatives passed a bill making illegal immigration a felony; but the proposal failed to pass muster in the Senate. The Senate's own effort in 2007 fared even worse. Police clashed with a crowd in Los Angeles. Opponents of reform barraged senators with so many calls that their phone system crashed. The Senate's bill, designed to please all sides, ended up pleasing no one.

Now Washington may try again.

--"All together now," The Economist (April 18, 2009)

You wouldn't think that President Obama's agenda or calendar could possibly accomodate another critical issue any time soon. Yet, his staff say that later this year Obama will address immigration reform and a process for legalizing illegal immigrants. Some advocacy groups expect to hear from Obama on the subject as early as next month, May. Major unions like the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition of unions have changed course and now are active advocates for the reform process. Business, too, although their agenda and that of the unions reflect notably differing interests.

It is time for intelligent, principled and pragmatic reform of our immigration policies and processes. We are after all, the great nation of immigrants: immigrants are who we are, and immigration is a foundation stone of our greatness. We should be able to manage this process a lot better than we do. It is also time for a fair and reasonable process for allowing illegal immigrants to achieve legal status as guest workers or legal immigrants.

But let's not press the issue precipitously or unwisely. The president is already up to his eyes in alligators with the economy and international issues and relationships. Rather, let's be patient enough to allow Obama and his team to get their timing right, be sure their allies are aligned and prepared, that a strong set of policies and plans are crafted, and that the necesssary time and effort has been devoted to informing and preparing the public. I do expect that he will get it right. From The Economist article:

When Mr Obama may dip his toe in these choppy waters, let alone dive in, remains unclear. "The president has consistently said that he wants to start the discussion later this year," says Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for the White House. "But the economy comes first."

Sounds about right to me.

[For my reflections on these subjects, see my 2007 essay "Strangers, Different Folk,'" one of my Cassandra's Tears essays. And if you view yourself as a Christian, you may also be interested in my recent blog post, "Reminders for Christians," below.]


http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496202

Reminders for Christians

• What is the first and greatest commandment?
  
  Love God with all that your are, and lose your identity in Him. Abide in Him and let His words abide in you. Then let that love flow over to your neighbors; love them as God loves you. (Matt. 22: 36-40; Matt. 16: 24-27; John 15; Gal.2: 19-20)

• Who is my neighbor?
  
  Yes, even the foreigner and stranger, especially the foreigner in distress in a strange and threatening land. Yes, even your enemy. (Luke 10: 25-37; Matt. 5: 43-47; Col. 3: 10-17)

• What does the New Testament make troublingly clear to us about how in the end God will judge us?
  
  Have you served Christ by serving and clothing the poor, feeding the hungry and and giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming with hospitality the stranger/foreigner, attending to and visiting the sick and the prisoner? If yes, you are the ones that Christ will claim for eternity. If no, then Christ will say to you, "Depart from me..." (Matt. 25: 31-46)

• How should we judge others?
  
  We shouldn't. Jesus was particularly intolerant of legalistic people, the self-righteous, and the judgmental. We are called to see others through His eyes and love them with His heart--and leave the judgment to God. The lost people that God would have us serve are not drawn to us or Him by self-righteous, legalistic judgement toward them. (Matt. 7: 1-5; Matt. 9: 10-13; Matt. 23; 1 Cor 5:9-13; Col. 3)

• What are the characteristics we should bring to our relationships with all people if we would be disciples and ambassadors of Christ?
  
  Unqualified love of all God's people and creation (1 Cor. 13; 1 John 4: 16-21; 1 John 2: 15-17; John 15; John 13: 34-35); unqualified, unlimited forgiveness (Matt. 6: 12, 14-15; Matt. 18: 21-35; Luke 7: 36-50); compassion (Matt. 5:7, 12-13; Matt. 9: 12-13; Matt.12: 7; John 8: 1-12); humility and gentleness (Matt. 5: 5; Matt. 11: 28-30; Matt. 21: 5; Eph. 4: 1-3; Col. 3: 12-15)

Real Tab for Bailout? A Lot Less Than You Think

Announced efforts top $7 trillion, but cost to taxpayers will be far lower.

Exact figures remain elusive, like most of the way the government handles and accounts for money, and it's complicated by a simmering alphabet soup of programs aimed at revving up the economy. The bottom line also depends on whom you ask....

So far, cash commitments made by various bailout efforts — including the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout and various lending programs by the Federal Reserve — are just shy of $3 trillion, Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for TARP, told the Senate Finance Committee March 31.

But the net cost to taxpayers will be much lower — more like $356 billion in direct spending — according to an analysis published last month by the Congressional Budget Office.

--"What's the real tab for the bailout? Take your pick " by John W. Shoen, msnbc.com

It's amazing how apparently ignorant or slyly disingenuous political players can act--particularly those who would have us believe that Obama's team has cavalierly, irresponsibly, spent $7-10 trillion for no good reason at all. It's as though they're saying that is just what Democrats do, or if you are a conservative Democrat, that is what liberal Democrats do. No one is pushing back very hard to make clear that these programs--most all of them--are completely consistent with the best macro-economic research and the views of the vast majority of the best economists today, whether Democrat or Republican. They may divide along party or ideological lines about how the money should be spent, but they all agree that the banking system bailout and the economic stimulus packages are essential.

And another fact that seems repeatedly and conveniently omitted is that most of the government support is not in the nature of unconditional spending of gifts. The msnbc.com article:

An analysis by msnbc.com concludes that Congress, the Fed and government agencies have announced plans to spend $7.2 trillion to fight the economic downturn, with the vast majority of that coming in the form of loans and loan guarantees.

So, this article is as welcome in it's clarifications as it is interesting. And it helps us put the Obama administration's various remedial and stimulus plans in better perspective. It also offers an entertaining and interactive "bailout breakdown" chart that allows you to add one separately identified spending program after another to an enlarging circle that keeps a cumulative total. It's fun. And if you want more of a discription of each of the programs, you can jump over to another article: "Bailout acronym soup: A handy guide," msnbc.com.

And now, Obama has appointed a Chief Performance Officer and a Chief Technology Officer to oversee a budget review process with the stated purpose to "trim the fat and waste from the budget." Good idea, and a first for presidential budget oversight. Many items have already been identified and, if we are to take the President seriously, many more will follow. The president:

"In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective," he said. "In this effort, there will be no sacred cows and no pet projects. All across America, families are making hard choices, and it's time their government did the same.

"As surely as our future depends on building a new energy economy, controlling healthcare costs and ensuring that our kids are once again the best educated in the world, it also depends on restoring a sense of responsibility and accountability to our federal budget," Obama said. "Without significant change to steer away from ever-expanding deficits and debt, we are on an unsustainable course."

He has praised the efforts of Defense Secretary Gates in this area, and others in the congress--both Republicans and Democrats. Could it be that when the dust clears, Obama's presidency will not only have boldly saved us from a depression and restored us to economic health, but also brought more responsibility and accountability to the federal budgeting process than any Democrat or Republican in the last half century? So far, so good? You bet it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30115091/

Paul Krugman

If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see. By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are.... Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right? What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize—well, maybe not nationalize, that loaded word—but restructure the banks before they collapse altogether?

... But, says Krugman, "the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I've never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong"—when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman (pronounced with an "oo," not an "uh" sound) to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.

It's possible that Krugman is a little wounded by this high-level disregard, and he said he felt sorry about criticizing officials whom he regards as friends, like White House Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer. But he didn't seem all that sorry....

Krugman has a bit of a reputation for settling scores. "He doesn't suffer fools. He doesn't like hauteur in any shape or form. He doesn't like to be f––ked with," says his friend and colleague Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz. "He's not a Jim Baker; he's not that kind of Princeton," says Wilentz... Krugman's fellow geniuses sometimes tease him or intentionally provoke his wrath. At an economic conference in Tokyo in 1994, Krugman spent so much time berating others that his friends purposely started telling him things that they knew weren't true, just to see him get riled up. "He fell for it every time," said a journalist who was there but asked not to be identified so she could speak candidly. "You'd think that eventually, he would say, 'Oh, come on, you're just jerking my chain'." Krugman says he doesn't recall the incident, but says it's "possible."

---"Obama's Nobel Headache," by Evan Thomas, Newsweek (3/28/09)

I find Paul Krugman very interesting, and often very provocative. He's is both fun and useful that way. But he seems to me too cavalier in advocating for more extensive or complete government take over of the private banking system, even if it's just until things turn around. It's a difficult balance, and it's messy to be sure, but I think Bernanke's approach of being wary of too much government control and adjusting the government role one step at a time is more prudent.

Also, Krugman leaves the impression that his disrespect toward Obama's economic team may, in part, be just the latest engagement in a career-long competitive relationship with Lawrence Summers--a competition in which Summers has previously, clearly emerged as more publicly and academically successful (even if often very controversial). But now the newly minted Nobel laureate has found his public voice, his forum, and his cause: undermining establish figures and establishment thinking. First the Bush administration, now Obama's. Sometimes, it seems, I can almost hear the axe grinding.

And I don't know why he is also so outspoken and uncollegial toward Bernanke, his colleague and department head at Princeton. Perhaps there are issues there, too. But like Bernanke, he is said to have always been a shy-ish person, and a careful researcher and commentator. But with his column in the NYT and now the Nobel prize, he appears to be letting it all out--publicly, brashly, with professional abandon--as if on a mid-career spring break where all the bridled emotions and constrained personal expression can be let out to play. His Nobel, his NYT column, the public demand, have given him permission for his cathartic season. And he really seems to be enjoying it.

But his could be a much more useful and influential voice--if he could only approach issues, institutions and people in a more tempered, constructive way. Too often his temperament, his chosen platform, and his style undermine his credibility. Publicly and in print, he is too often the impish mid-life intellectual entertainer cavorting in the limelight, enjoying his season of demand as an anti-establishment economic and political provocateur. He could and should be more.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393

Who is My Spiritual Brother?

Who is my brother or sister on my spiritual journey? How do I recognize such people? Is it their profession of faith, their claim of identity or outward appearance? Is it everyone who says, Lord, Lord? More and more, as my prayer relationship with God has deepened, there has emerged another understanding for me. The New Testament’s first letter of John challenges us saying,

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love….God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”

This teaching finds added authority and inspiration in the many similar and challenging teachings on love by Jesus, especially those in the Gospel of John.

Another challenging teaching of Jesus is on the disowning final judgment of those who do not help or serve “the least of our brethren”—those who therefore do not serve Him. These two teachings would cause me to be much more humble and generous in my recognition of who may know and walk with God—both in the many Christian communities and in other faith traditions as well. At the very least, I should be ready to share God’s love toward all of them, and be open to receiving God’s love from any of them.

And for those who would hasten to point out that another person has not accepted Jesus as Lord, I would only suggest that we carry enough humility to inform us that we may not know all things about God, or Jesus, or the Spirit of God, or how He works with the people He loves—which includes all people, everywhere. An evident love of God and all humanity, and unselfish service or help to those most in need, brings one so close to Christ’s identity and teaching, so close to the heart of God, that I would feel uncontrollably moved to call him brother—and leave the working out of our differences and their importance to God.

But beware of those who profess faith in God and identity with His people, who maintain the outward appearance and language of faith community, but reflect no love for the larger family of humanity, or do not serve the needs of the poor and unable. Avoid the angry, cultural and political warriors, and the fundamentalists of all faiths who appear unable to receive or convey God’s unqualified love. They too often serve only themselves and their cultural, political or cultish interests, and are too often in the process of condemning or discriminating against one group or another that God would have them love. They also appear unable to receive God’s Spirit, His forgiveness, compassion and humility. For if they could, they would more often reflect it and share it with others in the lives they live within and without their communities.

First written: November 2006 – January 2007 ("Who is My Brother," in my What God series of essays ), updated November 2007 - March 2008
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007