The Loyal Rebels

When faced with accusations of civil disorder and state corruption, Christians can be tempted to despair over our response. The cry for justice and the call to obey the state present a seeming contradiction for believers. Some want to revolt against the powers that be while others want to support the lawful authorities. It's a tricky thing, for sure, but we have reason to hope that the testimony of the Bible has not failed us here.

The beauty and the difficulty of the classical Christian view of the state is its complex realism. The endemic corruptness of humanity demands an agent of force to curtail the worst of our natures. Without security we cannot have even the limited human flourishing possible in a post-Fall world. However, as the state, like Soylent Green, is made of people, this same corrupted human nature adheres to those humans comprising the state.

We hear that we are not to put our trust in princes, yet we also hear that we are to pray for the peace of a Babylon, a state which was hardly the acme of enlightened rule. Paul can describe the state as the minister of God and Peter can call on Christians to submit to the government, all in the context of a Roman system that makes American cops look like a bunch of fuzzy kittens. Yet, that's kind of hard to say, isn't it? Saying, "You don't have it so bad as others," works about as well in this context as it does telling someone that their physical pain or loss of their liberty isn't as bad as so and so over there has it.

Christianity offers contingent support to the state because it recognizes what the state truly is, a stopgap measure for the post-Fall, pre-glorification world that was never intended as the final guarantor of justice. In this way Augustine of Hippo was able to offer robust support of state authority even as he railed against all governments as nothing more than bandits whose territory increased enough to be called a kingdom. Christianity offers neither an absolute support for the state nor suggests that our support for the state is conditioned on our political preferences.

Both the "Back the Badge" and the "No Justice, No Peace" crowds fail in the same way as they each assume there can be such a thing as an non-corrupt state. The first assumes that God's ordination of the state entails the inevitability of justice from such a pure source while the second believes that any sign of injustice means God has not ordained this state. Both underestimate the extensiveness of the Fall. Both absolutize the state in a way not found in the Bible.

While many think this is a problem, I don't think this is Christianity's great weak point but one of its great strengths. The Bible offers example after example of the need for a corrupted people to have a state to hem them in. Yet, it offers example after example of corrupted rulers making a mess of things. It offers, in the Fall, an explanation for the presence of injustice yet also, in the reality of a personal God who has created a good world and who is redeeming that world, it provides a hope for an expansion of justice in this world.

Despite its pretensions to the contrary, atheism offers no hope in the face of injustice and oppression. In a purely materialist universe human rights devolve into social conventions on the level saying "Excuse me," after belching, pleasantries with no enduring value. Christianity, on the other hand, offers someone to complain to. In his book, The Rebel, my favorite non-Christian writer, Albert Camus, said this, "The only thing that gives meaning to human protest is the idea of a personal god who has created, and is therefore responsible for, everything. And so we can say, without being paradoxical, that in the Western World the history of rebellion is inseparable from the history of Christianity."

Christianity provides the rationale for a state and the basis for strong opposition to that state.

An Evangelical by Any Other Name

I recently told my students that if they could manage to come up with a definition of “Evangelicalism” that everybody could agree on, they could make a lot of money. It is one of those terms that everyone uses but few have a handle on what it really means. Unlike its related but equally ephemeral cousin, “fundamentalism,” evangelicalism still retains an occasional positive connotation. Sadly, the once proud term fundamentalist has been largely reduced to a second and third person invective. “You” or “they” might be fundamentalist, but “we” or “I” hardly ever are. In much the say way, these definitions of evangelicalism say more about the speakers than they do about actual evangelicals. Pundits use it to describe Koran burners and televangelists, politicians use it to analyze a special interest group, and others ponder whether “Ee-vangelical” means something different than “Eh-vangelical.”

In the past it was fairly straightforward to the point that it was often quipped that an evangelical is simply someone who likes Billy Graham. Today it has become increasingly complex as no definition seems complete without an attendant hyphen, leaving us with “evangelical-feminist,” “the evangelical-left,” and even “evangelical-Catholic.” If Al Mohler and Jim Wallis, Joel Osteen and Tim Keller can all be evangelical despite mutually exclusive ideas, what on earth does it mean in the first place? We may soon find ourselves with a definition so diluted of content that we borrow from Francis Schaeffer’s “true truth” and say that an evangelical-evangelical is someone who actually believes in evangelicalism.

Well, desperate times call for desperate measures. We find now that we can turn to a paragon of subtly for a solution to our problem. Responding to the recent hullabaloo over religious liberty laws in Indiana, Steve “Stone Cold” Austin forwarded his two cents in a commentary heavy with the dew of profanity. Although you may enjoy a more full exposition of his thought here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/steve-austin-gay-marriage_n_5205212.html his terminology is somewhat more . . . colorful . . . than would be appropriate in this venue. We can paraphrase him to say that he objects to the idea that Christians think they have spoken to God and that Christians believe that the worst of criminals can go to heaven. Whether meaning to do so or not, the erstwhile wrestles pins on Christians two complaints which go to the heart of evangelical identity: revelation and redemption.

Evangelicals hold to a radical view of revelation. This is not, as Mr. Austin characterizes it, a matter of Christians going up and speaking to God, but, rather, that he has come down and spoken to us. Were Austin’s description accurate, this would be objectionable, as it would leave us dependent on the recollections of the few who made the trip to heaven rather than on the sure report of the self-revealing God who came down to us. But this is not so. The evangelical identity is built upon the idea that we have in the Bible God’s message to humanity and not merely the theological musings of people long gone. The evangelical identity is built on the principle that, as it is his message to us, we are not in the position of deciding which parts to believe or to obey, as though theological study were a middle school Bible study where we ask, “What does this mean to you?” It is to the pattern set by him that we are to conform our preferences and not the other way around. The word of God to humanity is not subject to the whims of a postmodern literary theory any more than it was limited by the preconceptions of a Medieval Magisterium.

Evangelicals also hold to a radical view of redemption. Mr. Austin objects that a murderer and molester should not be able to go to heaven after the life he has led. Implicit in Mr. Stone Cold’s complaint is the idea that heaven should be for those who deserve it, for those who have lived a life on earth worthy of a reward in heaven. It also implies that those of us who are not murderers and rapists can have the confidence that we belong to this latter group. We can know that our own merits will pave our road into the New Jerusalem. The cross of Christ becomes only an example to follow and not a necessity of life. It is the radical claim of evangelicalism that a sinner such as Mr. Austin described can indeed be saved. This view of redemption defining evangelicalism is that the sins of the best of us are so great that it required the death of God to save us, and, yet, the work of Christ is so overwhelming that it overcomes the vilest soul imaginable. There is no saint so pure or sinner so foul that the work of Christ is not the sole and sure hope of each.

Evangelicals are those who hope in the evangel of God. The message of God has come down to humanity, and the presence of God has come down to Earth. Evangelicals are those who base their lives on the hope that God has spoken and that God has acted. This good news of God both transcends and transforms our cultural moment and personal predilections. Our old traditions and new innovations cannot stand in between the word God speaks of himself and the people he saves for himself. We are able to speak into the controversies of life, not because we have access to God but because he has accessed the world through his word. We are able to hope for a changed world where all is made new, not because we have kept off contemporary society’s naughty list but because Christ died for the ungodly.

Presumably Mr. “Cold” did not intend on getting to the crux of the issue so pointedly as he did. Nonetheless, we find in his analysis an important reminder of the reality of God’s word and the centrality of the cross. We may, and undoubtedly will, continue to quibble over just what or who constitutes an evangelical. But, if we lose either of these points, that God’s word is not subject to our transitory impressions and that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the solitary and unmediated path to God, we can throw around any definitions we want to. If we lose the evangel of God, our evangelicalism becomes a meaningless anyhow.

Is There Virtue in Silence?

“For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish.” Esther 4:14

“For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven . . . a time to tear, and a time to sew, a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7.

In moments of crisis and stress, the call often goes out for Christians publicly to take a stand about the issue, even if that stand is as simple as a social media posting indicating support or opposition. Obviously, the greatest portion of anger is directed towards those who chose to speak out in an inappropriate way, those who, by their word choice or basic position place themselves outside what is considered moral behavior and opinon. Yet these are not alone in incurring the wrath of those of us who see this or that as the defining moment when a prophetic call is needed. There are times when we condemn the absence of a statement as complicity with the evil of the day with nearly as much passion as we do those who speak wrongly.

Are there times when silence in the presence of evil is evil itself? Certainly. There are moments when silence is acquiescence. When faced with a grave injustice it is quite possible that we choose to say or to do nothing because we approve of the sin we see. We can think of the German Christians, saying nothing as their Jewish neighbors disappeared, one by one. If we are greedy ourselves, we may refuse to condemn those who exploit others for financial gain. If we are gossips, we may turn a blind eye towards the slander done by others. If we indulge in pornography, we are unlikely to condemn it practice in others. If we carry hatred in our hearts towards another branch of Father Adam’s family tree, we may well find reasons to avoid comment when racial injustice stares us in the face.

Are there times when such a silence, though not malicious, is still the sign of a hard heart, apathetic to the plight of others? By all means. Fiddling while our own Rome burns, we can’t be bothered by the misfortune affecting other people. We in the West with our ample refrigerators and even more ample waistlines shake our heads about the starving peoples of the world, and then head back to our gluttony. We see the suffering of the persecuted church, and then think only to thank God that we’re American. We may dislike the idea of abortion, but we can’t be bothered to rock the boat by saying so publicly. We who are white see the lack of opportunities and hostility endured by ethnic minorities, stoop only offer a prayer that Jesus would come soon, but then go back to our trust funds and friendly policemen.

For many who have raised their voices in protest about a social or moral problem, this is where the story ends. We look with disdain at those who do not take the stand we do or, perhaps, who do so in a different way. When we hear their silence, we can see no alternative but that either acquiescence or apathy rules the hearts of our taciturn neighbors. Is this so? Rarely do we ask ourselves if there might be more going on in our brother’s or sister’s souls than what we will allow for them.

There is another reason for silence, although it is rather less dramatic than the other options. It is a reason which even those who speak boldly concerning situation “A” might find appealing when it comes to situation “B.” It is the silence born of prudence. It is the silence we share when we decide that, whatever the merits of the crisis at hand, speaking out at this moment would not be wise. It may be as private as dealing with an unbelieving coworker involved in some obvious sin and asking ourselves whether the more constructive approach is confronting or ignoring. It may be as public as supporting a political party for the sake of one part of their platform even though we know full well that this means implicitly supporting another part of their agenda which makes our conscience squirm.

Perhaps it is a situation which we think all Christians should avoid addressing publicly. Perhaps it is one where we think that only we ourselves should stand back. We may be glad that the discussion is going on, and that others are speaking up. Yet we still may decide, at times, that we are not pleased with the way it is progressing and that our own particular contribution will not be constructive, for one reason or another. Any of us may imagine a moment, and more likely we have experienced a moment when we, too, have decided, for whatever reasons, that godly wisdom entails silence in the face of sin.

This will be of small comfort to those who have concluded that this moment or this crisis is the time to speak. What is more, we may be right. The moment we see today or tomorrow might well be one of those times when it is irresponsible of any Christian to refuse to let their voices be heard. It might be that to stay silent now makes us culpable of accommodating sin. Yet, when we say that there is no moral option other than the one we have chosen, we must be on our guard that we have not limited wisdom to what we can imagine in our finite and fallen minds.

The combination of life’s complexity and human frailty entails that there will be disagreements in this life. We will not all agree on all issues. Even if we do agree on the goal, we will not all agree on the best course of action towards that goal. For some this will mean deeds, while, for others it will mean words. For others still it will mean silence. Before we start accusing our brothers and sisters in Christ of sins of omission, we must ask whether it is us who have left something undone which we ought to have done. Have we gone to them with a humble spirit and asked them if their silence has some purpose we have not considered? Let us make manifest grace to one another by assuming that our fellow members of the Bride of Christ are not acting according to our worst imaginings of their silence until forced to do so by their words. Let us do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Thoughts on the Iraqi Blame Game

As the world stumbles from one crisis to another with alarming frequency, we are reminded once again that ours is not stable planet. Conflicts once forgotten have roared back into our consciousness. Even those no longer leading the evening news, if there is such a thing in today’s 24/7 media world, have lost their places not because they have become more placid but because another equally or more intense conflict has gripped the imaginations of journalists and politicians. Ukraine screams back into view with yet another Malaysian Airlines disaster, Israeli incursions into the Gaza strip remind us of the unending war in the Levant, and Syrian war dead have long since lost their significance as the numbers climb ever higher.

The ongoing crisis in Iraq is particularly keen in this regard. In the last decade-plus we have seen one President declare “Mission Accomplished,” and another pronounce that the United States could leave Iraq a stronger and more stable place. A brief glance at any news website will disabuse you of any such thought. Rather than the stable democracy acting as beacon of American goodwill or as the happy results of a less unilateral Yankee foreign policy, we see monks expelled from centuries old monasteries and Christian homes marked in a chilling echo of similar signs on Muslim homes in the Balkans of the 1990s. Where we once were promised a democratic peace would engulf the region with the Arab Spring, we  now see new dictatorships in Egypt and a Caliphate established encompassing Syria and Iraq. Many are left asking, "How did we get here?"

In our hyper-polarized political world it is a rare moment when a joint opinion is held by President Obama's fans as well as his most ardent foes. One of the more popular answers to this questions is to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of President George W. Bush. Doing this is made all the more easy by the fact that the former Commander in Chief has answered any such criticism with a clear "No comment." This vacuum is enthusiastically filled by President Obama's defenders, restating their regular refrain that any problems in the world are only the residue left by his hated predecessor and joining them are the pseudo-isolationists of the Libertarian movement who say the world would have been better had US troops stayed at home. Though they disagree on nearly everything else, these two groups, the "America is evil" Left and the "America first" Libertarians, stand united in their belief that the world would be a far better place had Bush not led the nation to war.

To this way of thinking, Operation Iraqi Freedom upturned the apple cart of the Middle East, inciting rage against the West in the "Arab Street" and radicalizing millions in one fell swoop. Whatever peace had been maintained in the volatile region became unbalanced as Iran, once hemmed in by a hostile and powerful Iraq, was now freed to instigate chaos at will. No matter how evil Saddam Hussein might have been, removing him cannot have been worth all this, right?

Anyone who knows me at all will be aware that this is not an interpretation I share. My first reaction was to think that this is rather like blaming Roosevelt and Churchill for the decades-long tyranny of Central Europe by Communist rulers. This is true, to a point. Had the Allies not bothered to confront the Germans in 1939 and afterwards, the Communists would have been checked in their ambitions towards Europe and their moves in China and Southeast Asia may have been curtailed as well. Tens of millions would have avoided death in political concentration camps and hundreds of millions could have retained their dignity as free people in the wake of the post-World War II settlement.

However, this analogy does not hold as the American and British leaders in the 1940s were aware of and accepted the consequences of their deal with the devil, Stalin. They didn't want it, but they saw no alternative, given the global situation at the time. Oh, we can quibble and suggest that US forces could have pushed on to Berlin instead of stopping in central Germany or maybe the Allies could have followed Churchill's advice and invaded southern Europe and thereby prevented Soviet troops from occupying everything from Poland to Bulgaria, but the point still stands. The Western Allies knew that their choices would lead to the domination of half of Europe by radical forces intent on remaking humanity in their own image, an image carrying a cost in human lives which makes the efforts of Al Qaeda and the ISIS look like child's play. In contrast, even though the leaders of the Iraq War are accused the world over of being somewhere between dangerously incompetent and maniacally evil, no one is yet claiming that Bush and Blair knew and accepted that today's headlines would result from their actions the way Roosevelt and Churchill countenanced Communist oppression.

Instead I think the better parallel would be somewhere been bad cooking and worse medical practice. If you decided to make dinner one evening and set about to collect your ingredients and follow your recipe, your plan might work well or it might not. If left to yourself and your meal turned out to taste like rotten skunk, it would be fair of others to blame the cook. If, however, I came along and told you that you were doing it all wrong and proceeded to change your recipe and alter your ingredients, it'd be rather odd if I then complained about outcome.

Or, to use a more visceral illustration, suppose two doctors disagreed about the proper procedure for a given patient. One thinks that an invasive procedure like surgery is the best course of action, while the other feels a milder, more indirect approach is better. Let's say the first doctor succeeds in performing the surgery, but complications arise. Some of these are expected, but others are not. The second doctor now takes over and not only institutes his preferred treatments but also works to undo the work of his predecessor. He removes the stitches put in place earlier and alters the medication to what he wanted before the surgery occurred. Inevitably and tragically the result would be that the patient would likely now be in a far worse situation than before any intervention. 

Right now the critics of Bush's policy are saying "I told you so!" but I would suggest it would almost be better if they said, "We made it so!" Both the Leftist and Libertarian factions claim that had their advice been followed, the mess of the Middle East would be far more bearable than it presently is today. They look to the 2003 invasion as the first domino setting in motion the current crisis. Few are so foolish as to think the Arab World would be a picnic, but they see the Iraq War as making it all far, far worse.

But they are forgetting something here. To continue with the domino analogy, they are forgetting that the tiles have been rearranged in the past few years. They are forgetting that starting in 2009 a new recipe was followed and a new procedure was put in place. The plans and protections enacted by Bush were drastically altered or even removed. Rather than acting as a proactive force in the world which could be relied upon, US policy became far less engaged with the world and far more likely to withdraw in the face of hostility.

The foreign policy of the Obama administration has hardly been akin to what Libertarians would want in the world today. They're not even what his fellow Leftists would have wanted. And they certainly aren't what the conservatives among us longed for. Reversing TR's adage, this administration seems prone to talk loudly and carry a small stick, make big speeches but signal withdrawal from the world. However, what is pertinent to this question, the question blaming Bush for the debacle in Iraq, is that the strategy employed in the last five years has been nothing like what Bush himself would have wanted.

Does Bush bear some of the blame for the mess of the last decade? Certainly. What is more is that he admits as much. Specifically he admitted as much in action in 2006 when he reversed his emphasis on a light footprint and a reactive force in the face of intense terrorist attacks in Iraq. Sacking much of his command staff, he worked to take the fight to the enemy. As a result violence in the nation slackened dramatically. A real hope of peace was on the horizon, only to have these hard-won dreams dissipate with hope and change. Bush took the blame for his actions and then worked to reverse his errors. The champions of withdrawal pass the buck for their choices and double down on non-intervention.

Liberal Logic

Conservatives like myself are often puzzled when they hear their Liberal friends rail against the manipulative nature of Talk Radio and Fox News while they listen raptly to the latest NPR or CNN broadcast as if the latter two were pure as the driven snow. To help aid us in this confusing paradox, I’ve developed a list of rules that we must understand if we’re ever to fathom the ways of our fellow man (or woman).

A. A boisterous Conservative rally is “angry.”

B. A boisterous Liberal rally is “passionate.”


A. Conservative legislation that doesn’t achieve its goals is proof that it shouldn’t have been the law in the first place.

B. Liberal legislation that doesn’t achieve its goals is proof that the law didn’t go far enough the first time around.


A. Conservative politicians who play the system to stall a vote are “obstructionist.”

B. Liberal politicians who play the system to stall a vote are “principled.”


A. Conservative Presidents who use Executive privileges to enact policy are “setting aside the Constitution.”

B. Liberal Presidents who use Executive privileges to enact policy are “getting things done.”


A. Conservatives who point out the dangers of policy X are “fear mongering.”

B. Liberals who point out the dangers of policy Y are “raising awareness.”


A. Conservative candidates who call attention to their opponents’ foibles and unsavory associates are “distracting from the issues.”

B. Liberal candidates who call attention to their opponents’ foibles and unsavory associates are “demanding accountability.”


A. A Conservative politician whose de-regulation measures foster a dramatic decrease in the unemployment rate is “captive to business interests.”

B. A Liberal politician whose regulation measures foster a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate is “devoted to the common man.”


A. A Conservative President who goes to war with Congressional authorization, a multinational coalition, and tries to get UN approval is “a dangerous unilateralist.”

B. A Liberal President who goes to war without consulting either the Congress or the UN is a “global leader.”


A. Speaking derisively about a Conservative politician is a wonderful example of America’s freedom of speech and anyone who objects needs to get a sense of humor.

B. Speaking derisively about a Liberal politician is a sign of what’s wrong with America’s political discourse and anyone who objects needs to stop being so hateful.


A. An ambiguous statement by a Conservative politician should be assumed to have the most egregious meaning.

B. An ambiguous statement by a Liberal politician should be assumed to have the most innocuous meaning.


A. When Conservatives invoke the Bible to support their cause they are “religious” and are confusing the line between church and state.

B. When Liberals invoke the Bible to support their cause they are “spiritual” and bringing morality into the political realm.


A. Agreeing with a Conservative politician’s actions is to display your inability to think for yourself.

B. Agreeing with a Liberal politician’s actions is to display your ability to think outside the box.


I’m sure that some of my more liberally minded friends (or those who’d prefer to think of themselves as moderate) will object that 1) Conservatives are guilty of the same things and 2) Conservatives are guilty of other things. That is all well and good, and if you feel like coming up with your own list of Conservative failings, that’d be fine by me. There’s plenty of material for you.

But let me ask you, how does the myopia and inconsistency of Conservatives negate in any way the myopia and inconsistency of Liberals? One of my biggest grievances with Liberals is that while they go about making such a big deal about how tolerant and open-minded they are, anyone who spends any time around them will soon discover that they are anything but.

In my own experience I have heard as much (if not more) examples of intolerance of dissent, demeaning of opposition characters, and Lemming-like activity from Liberals than I have from their Conservative neighbors. To this is added their audacity to preen about their unbiased attitudes, respect for others, and independence of thought.

So long as any of us keeps pretending that we are without flaws today and without the potential for flaws tomorrow, then so long will discourse, political or otherwise, be tainted with rancor and self-righteousness.

Doing the Math

Perhaps someone else can correct my "math" and I simply haven't seen it correctly, but there have been a couple of rather interesting implications in the news in the past week that have made me wonder. It is not so much the events themselves, though they are compelling enough. It is more what they say about an apparently discredited political philosophy.

It has become axiomatic in popular culture and in the media that if George W Bush had been for a thing it must have been bad. Often following hard upon this point is the corollary that if something is bad that W must have had something to do with it. I'm not planning on arguing here that everything he did was good or that nothing he did was bad. However, we can't very well say that we've thought the matter through if we don't take into account what would otherwise have to be some rather remarkable coincidences recently.

The first is rather subtle. The North Koreans, for reasons that never seem apparent to anyone, occasionally go on saber-rattling fests where they challenge the rest of the world with utter destruction like some odd combination of Dr Evil and Cobra Commander. Its most recent incarnation has involved the threat of launching of a new missile that could possibly reach out as far as the Aloha state. Since they have apparently acquired nuclear weapons, this poses a more serious threat than their past ramblings.

Yesterday, on MSNBC, a local newswoman was interviewed about the attitude of the Hawaiians in the face of the newest danger. She reported that the people weren't particularly worried in part because of the assurances of President Obama about our military capabilities and the increased presence of said military forces. As an example MSNBC showed pictures of one of the United States's giant domed radar ships watching and waiting for any incoming threat.

The other oddity has been splayed all over the news for the past week and more. The Iranians have presented Americans with a gift. A riot in the Middle East where we are not the object of hatred or even have much to do with the argument. Young people who've grown up under a theocratic tyranny are risking (and losing) their lives in a demand for democracy that soon could be more of a revolution than a simple protest.

Here's where I get puzzled. During his administration President Bush (43) was railed at unceasingly for his cowboy, unilateral tactics. Exhibit 'A' was early in his first term when his abrogated the Ballistic Missile treaty with the Russian Federation enabling him to establish at long last a mini-me version of President Reagan's so-called 'Star Wars' defense program. Instead of a massive, space-based missile shield, the United States would now field a few dozen anti-missile missiles in the Pacific and in Europe designed to counter limited threats from 'Rogue Regimes.'

In the same way W was decried for his naive proposal about challenging hostile states by enabling democracy in Iraq. His proposal was that when the populations in neighboring countries saw the Iraqis practicing free elections that this would lead them to wonder why they couldn't have such rights too. Then, with more opportunities for free expression in their own lands, the people would have less need to express themselves violently overseas.

So now, in the past week or so, we have seen Obama tout Bush's missile defense program and the protection Bush claimed it would despite the fact that the Democrats swore it never could, and we've seen a Middle Eastern tyranny be rocked by protests from its people demanding free and fair democracy just as Bush promised and not as the Democrats long denied.

If people want to go on thinking that Bush was the worst President in history, that is fine, but what will they make of this? Bush said he wanted to create a missile shield, and the Left said it would make things worse. Now, we have the protection and the Left thinks its all a great idea. Bush said fostering democracy in Iraq would lead to democracy movements in neighboring, hostile regimes. Now we have a massive democracy movement in neigbhoring, hostile Iran. Am I missing something here? or did maybe, just maybe, W got his math right?

by Timothy Padgett

Reasons and Romance

A lot of the time when I tell people that I am not among the horde planning on voting for Senator Obama, I am greeted with a quizzical expression. Apparently, the fact that I come across as mildly well-informed and somewhat well-intentioned doesn't equate in their minds with voting for Senator McCain. So as to alleviate some of their disequilibrium, I thought I'd offer some of the reasons I have for my irrational choice.

For one thing, I just don't get it. I'll grant anyone that he's a charming speaker, but if a pleasant persona were the criteria for the Presidency we'd all be voting for Tom Hanks and be done with it. Beyond this, I'm just not seeing what sets him apart from the rest of the gang. His policies, when he isn't off writing yet another autobiography and shows up to vote, are a part of the same Left-wing as a whole gaggle of others. He is a consistent Left-winger who votes with the Left-wing and hangs out with an even more Left-wing. I'm a conservative, ergo, I don't want him for the job.

I can understand the Left in America liking him, considering that he is one of them, but I don't get what the Center sees in this guy. What bothers me about so many of these Centrists is that they don't seem to know what they see in him either. They tell me that he'll bring the change we need to Washington. When I ask them to tell me what part of his record demonstrates that he even can bring about this change or that it is the change we need, they come up short on specifics. Now we can't be too hard on them. It's not their fault that he's done so little.

I'm told they want him in the White House because he understands their values. Really? How do you know that? He says so in his speeches? Call me crazy, but isn't that kind of what politicians are supposed to do? It's not like there's someone out there saying that you should elect him because he doesn't feel your pain. I haven't seen anything in what he's done to support all his pretty rhetoric, and no one who supports him has told me much either.

I'm not quite sure how to handle those whose first justification for supporting my Senator is that anything will be better than what we have now. Am I supposed to take that comment seriously? You think anyone would be better? If so, why don't you vote for me? I'm different! Aside from the fact that I won't be old enough until April, you'd be crazy to vote for someone so unqualified as me for the Presidency no matter how nice a guy you thought I was.

I am amazed about one thing concerning Obama. Apparently, it is impossible to have a valid criticism about him. It seems that anytime anyone brings up a point where he looks bad it turns out that that person is all about destructive politics. What an amazing coincidence! Obama can't be held accountable for going to a racist church for 20 years, but the unsolicited endorsement of an anti-Catholic pastor says something disturbing about McCain. When his supporters say spiteful things about the GOP candidates it's because they are passionate, but when angry words come from the Right, then they are just being hateful.

Now my final excuse for avoiding logic is one that a lot of his conservative supporters seem to want to push to the periphery. They tell me Evangelicals, like myself, need to show our independence as a group from the GOP by voting as a group for the Dems. They tell me that we need to get beyond single-issue voting choice and examine the whole range of issues.

Fair enough on the surface, but tell me this. If a candidate had consistently voted to maintain the privileges of companies willfully responsible for deaths of huge numbers of children, how would this affect your vote? If the police or military were systematically using kids as target practice and seemed to favor doing so with minorities, would you say this was the way to go? Senator Obama has consistently supported such a scheme that has killed not 4,000 or 40,000 but 40,000,000 plus. Is this the change you can believe in? Is this your hope? If this is not a single issue worth making or breaking your support, what would it take?

I don't want him for the job because he is spectacularly unqualified for the position, I don't think his policies are well-founded, and he is promising more than I see he has reason to vouch for. My question for the Centrist is this: What is it in Senator Obama's policies and record (and I mean record, not rhetoric) that distinguishes him from the rest of the crowd? Disagree with me if you want. If you're convinced he's the man for the job, then more power to you. If you agree with his voting record, then you should vote for someone who agrees with you. We ALL want a better world. Who's has the better chance of moving towards that right now?