Why don’t Christians talk about humility anymore?

Sometimes Garrison Keillor talks about how Protestants used to believe in seeking humility. He will talk about how people in Lake Woebegone think that drawing attention to yourself and being assertive in public is something that a Christian should not do. As near as I can tell outside of Lake Woebegone church people in America don't talk that way anymore. Assertiveness training has been remarkably successful. Far from being humble Americans now revel in their right to be assertive, very much including the majority who consider themselves Christians,

Along with this assertiveness comes a strange sense of entitlement. So lacking in humility are such a large percentage of Americans that commercials now often refer to what they are selling as "what you deserve," confident that Americans think what they deserve is something fine and grand. Telling a traditional humble Christian that what you are selling is what she/he deserves would be a disaster, because as sinners we don't deserve very much. A commercial encouraging people to "get the car you deserve" would, I imagine, conjure up imagines of some old broken-down jalopy in someone with a traditional Christian outlook.

I've been pondering this curious state of affairs for a while and I have started wondering if the rise of the religious right had anything to do with this. A preacher trying to get her/his congregation to get active in politics and vote cannot also encourage humbleness. A determination to defeat politicians who do not agree with you and elect new ones you have selected is the epitome of hubris and pride. The leaders of the religious right had to transform their congregations into assertive people who could and should seek to transform the broader society and lead their neighbors. The idea that Christians should first seek to transform themselves had to be deemphasized. If people waited until they perfected themselves before trying to perfect society they would never get around to participating in politics at all.

Now that the Republican coalition of the religious right, neo-conservatives, financial conservatives and small-government libertarians shows signs of falling apart people are starting to wonder how anyone could have ever thought that these groups had any common ground. The social conservatives of the religious right have had very little of their agenda actually enacted in law – abortion is still legal, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile the tax cutters and neo-conservatives have everything they asked for. It surely must becoming clear to the religious right that the Republican elected officials are giving them only lip service, not legislation, in return for their work, money and support. That, along with all the sexual and financial scandals involving Republican law-makers, must have the religious right wondering if they have given up too much in their pursuit of political transformation. Perhaps that realization will be followed by a belated recognition that the goal of transforming society by political action was a profoundly unchristian idea and a mistake.

Pat Buchanan’s rant

I received a question from a regular reader of this blog why I had not commented on Pat Buchanan's Sunday newspaper column. I had not been moved to comment on it when I first read it because I thought it was its own refutation. Here are some excerpts from Buchanan's March 21 column:

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks - with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Well, now that I think about it I guess I do have something to say about this. Racial prejudice has diminished greatly in this country during my lifetime. A day may come when the disadvantages of being black in America will have diminished so much that they will be outweighed by the advantages and being of African descent will be as positive a thing as Mr. Buchanan finds being of Irish descent is today. That day has not yet come and only a self-pitying white racist such as Mr. Buchanan would think it had.

When people ask Barack Obama why he self-identifies as black rather than white he explains that it is because in many situations, such as trying to hail a taxi at night, he is treated as black. Whether or not he is African-American is not something he can choose the way someone with dual citizenship chooses one or the other of those countries.

In spite of all those programs Mr. Buchanan lists black unemployment, poverty and incarceration rates are much higher than whites. Government assistance targeted at the black community is trying to compensate for the disadvantages blacks face in the job and housing markets because of racial prejudice. When racial prejudice fades away those programs will no longer be needed and will also cease to exist.

Feelings of gratitude arise naturally in those who have reasons to be grateful. Demanding gratitude, as Mr. Buchanan does here, accomplishes nothing. Mr. Buchanan should see the difference between his expectations and reality as a signal that perhaps he is operating with faulty assumptions and he needs to reevaluate everything he thinks he knows.

Looking for a paying job in politics?

Are you a political progressive and interested in a job as a field organizer – a job that offers a salary and benefits?

I just received an email from Karen Traeger, who works for Americans for Democratic Action on a grassroots campaign called Working Families Win. They are looking for some field organizers in our area and Karen wondered if this blog accepted job announcements. A job announcement involving progressive political field organizing in this area? Not only will I post the job announcement, I might even apply for it.

Field Organizer for local Working Families Win Project

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is the nation’s most experienced independent advocacy organization whose lobbying philosophy is based on democratic action - motivating our grassroots members to lobby their Senators and Representatives as constituent-advocates.

Working Families Win is ADA’s community-based organizing project. The program is based on the belief that for working families across the country, the economy is not working. Good jobs continue to leave our communities and are replaced by lower wage jobs, often without benefits. Daily living costs are skyrocketing, yet wages for most workers are stagnant at best. Many of the workers who are suffering the most from the current economy are not meaningfully engaged in the political process.

Americans for Democratic Action believes that when working people are organized to support real alternatives to today's economic policies, demand that candidates support these alternatives too, and persuade their neighbors that we have a clear choice, real change will occur.

POSITION: WFW is looking for energetic self-starters to do local issue organizing. Candidates should have previous organizing experience in issue and/or candidate campaigns and a desire to help support progressive issues. Local ties a plus. This is a unique opportunity to play an integral role in a dynamic project.

The position reports directly to the WFW project director and/or the national field coordinator.

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES
• Implement WFW field and outreach strategies in target communities, including grassroots lobbying actions, voter education campaigns, candidate “bird-dogging,” voter id, and GOTV.
• Build coalitions among allies and nontraditional constituencies to grow broad community support for the WFW agenda.
• Build, engage, and mobilize a network of activists to advance WFW’s national advocacy campaigns through local organizing efforts.
• Generate local media coverage on behalf of WFW.
• Coordinate local and regional activist skills trainings
• Help develop and execute direct actions in target areas
• Track and report campaign deliverables.

PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
• Previous organizing experience in electoral, issue and/or legislative campaigns.
• Experience engaging and motivating large numbers of volunteers.
• Experience working collaboratively with other organizations.
• Enjoy working under pressure and can think quickly on your feet.
• Work well independently, as part of a geographically dispersed team.
• Familiarity with and understanding of health care and economic issues
• Excellent organizational, verbal, written, and interpersonal skills
• Willingness and ability, including own transportation, to travel throughout the assigned project region

SALARY and BENEFITS
Competitive salary plus health care.

Available immediately through 11/30/08.

Interested parties should submit a cover letter, resume, and references to Don Kusler at wfwjobs@adaction.org.

Who knew you could get paid for doing stuff like that?

Candlelight Peace Vigils

Today, Wednesday, March 19, 2008 is the 5^th anniversary of the start of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Candlelight peace vigils are being held around the country to commemorate this anniversary. Here in Moline, Illinois the vigil will be held at the corner of 34^th Ave and 60^th Street (near Black Hawk College) at 7PM. At 7:30 PM there will be an Interfaith Service for Peace at the Muslim Mosque at 34^th Ave and 60^th St. The American Muslim community of the Quad Cities is hosting a service that will include prayers and verses from Christians of various denominations, Muslims, Jews, Unitarians, Hindus and all people who desire peace.

Threatening sermons

Check out the Once Upon a Time… blog's take on the Obama-Jeremiah Wright media frenzy. In brief the blog points out that Rush Limbaugh in particular, and white society in general, considers Rev. Wright's theology improper because it differs from the bland, unthreatening Christianity they are used to. Of course, if you believe the Bible, Jesus was anything but unthreatening towards the rich and powerful of his day. According to the Gospels he was such a rabble-rouser, stirring up the people with anger towards the ruling classes, that he was executed as a subversive. Christianity only became bland and unthreatening to the rich and powerful when it was co-opted by the rulers and made the state religion. Rev. Wright's brand of Christianity only seems strange and unchristian to white America because we are used to a theology that was crafted to serve the interests of the ruling classes, a message very different from the one Jesus delivers in the Gospels.

Of course, the ideas each of us have about what Jesus was really like and really stood for are like mirrors – they reflect our own beliefs and points of view back at us. Social and political revolutionaries see Jesus as one of them. People who feel well-served by the exiting order and are invested in it feel sure that Jesus would be on the side of law and order.

My take on it is that if a sermon of Rev. Wright, someone who is well respected by many educated and intelligent people in his community including Barack Obama, seems strange and foreign to you then this could become a learning opportunity. There are communities of Americans you need to learn more about.

Bush wishes he were on the front lines

Bush expressed envy for our troops in Afghanistan

In a videoconference, Bush heard from U.S. military and civilian personnel [in Afghanistan] about the challenges ranging from fighting local government and police corruption to persuading farmers to abandon a lucrative poppy drug trade for other crops. […]

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

I guess youth is wasted on the young, because when Bush was of the age when he could have served he shirked the opportunity. Now older, and presumably wiser, he wishes he were young again so he could face that romantic danger on the front lines.

In an unrelated story Karl Rove recently gave credit to President Bush for teaching him honesty and ethics.

What can you say?

The story was going around my workplace about something one of the employees was overheard to tell a customer on the phone. Apparently the customer had asked for a particular salesman, who happens to be African – American, who had recently been promoted to another position at a sister company. The none-too-bright employee told the customer that salesman no longer worked for the company but suggested the customer instead talk to a particular other salesman because "He's black too."

What can you say, but "Oh dear?" He probably thought he was being helpful.

What can you say about Geraldine Ferraro? She is angry and defiant about the criticism she has received for saying that Barack Obama is lucky to be a black man, because if he was white he would not be running for president. She thinks she is telling the truth. She seems to sincerely believe that people who claim they are supporting Barack Obama, not because he is black but because of his intelligence (top of his class at Harvard Law, professor at the University of Chicago) charisma, inspiring oratory and proven ability to unite rather than divide, are deceiving themselves or are hypocrites. What can you say, but "Oh dear?"

What will be the most lasting effect of the War in Iraq?

Those of us old enough to remember the War in Vietnam remember that among the most enduring effects of that war was the psychological damage done to the soldiers who served. The Vietnam veterans had a much higher drug-addiction and homelessness rates than the general population and for many years after the war the tragic figure of the homeless Vietnam Vet was a reminder of the war that most would have preferred to forget. I have heard very little talk about it but there are a lot of reasons to think that the current War in Iraq is producing far more damaged veterans than did the War in Vietnam. Most soldiers in Vietnam served only one tour. Only those who volunteered to do so went back for more than one tour. In Iraq soldiers are being sent back for two or three tours. Now with the Surge the length of those tours are getting longer and the length of time between tours is getting shorter. At the same time we are reducing the amount and quality of medical and psychological care for our returning veterans. It can be years after a soldier has returned from war before the full effects of the war are obvious.

The United States has damaged itself grievously by attacking and occupying Iraq. We will be suffering the effects of these self-inflicted wounds for a very long time. There is economic damage, damage to our prestige and reputation around the world, damage to our civil liberties and privacy rights, the rule of law, our military preparedness and the damage to the individual soldiers. We will be suffering the effects of this damage for a very long time, indeed.

Bill Foster defeats Jim Oberweis

Democrat Bill Foster defeated wealthy Republican businessman Jim Oberweis yesterday in a special election to fill the Congressional seat of former Republican speaker Dennis Hastert who retired last year. Dennis Hastert's district was jerrymandered to be a safe Republican seat and in 2004 it went for Bush by 55%.

The national Republicans spent over $1 million trying to hold the seat and John McCain came to help raise money for Jim Oberweis. When the Democrats responded in kind with an equal amount of money and Barack Obama creating television commercials for Bill Foster the race became something of a preview of a possible November contest between McCain and Obama.

In typical Republican fashion the National Republican Congressional Committee released a statement last night denying the obvious significance of the race for Republican hopes in November:

"The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend. In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season. The presidential election is evidence of that. The Democratic candidates are trading election victories from week to week and the nomination could hinge on a few news cycles. The one message coming out of 2008 so far is that what happens today is not a bellwether of what happens this fall."

Can you believe the chutzpah?! They are trying to claim that the close contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton somehow shows that race between the Democratic and Republican nominees must be equally close. As this special election, the turnout in the primaries and caucuses, the amount of money raised and the general level of enthusiasm all show, the Democrats are far ahead of the Republicans.

Obama spending a lot of money in Texas and Ohio

I just watched Howard Wolfson, campaign adviser for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and David Axelrod, campaign adviser for Barack Obama, debate on ABC's "This Week." As previously promised the Clinton campaign was trying to throw the kitchen sink of charges against the Obama campaign so the exchange was not very inspiring or uplifting. At one point Wolfson pointed out in an accusing tone that Obama will be spending a lot of money in the next few days in Texas and Ohio.

Well, excuse me Mr. Wolfson, but Barack Obama will be spending a lot of money because over one million people have given him money expressly for that purpose.

Pete Seeger -- Patriot

I just watched the most amazing program on public television - American Masters: Pete Seeger: The Power of Song. The prgram described Pete Seeger as a great patriot and American -- a man who loved and devoted himself to this country. This was amazing to me because that is the way I always have thought of him, but it most certainly was not the way the powers that be, including broadcast television talked about him throughout most of my (and his) life. He was completely banned from broadcast television throughout my childhood and it was clear that the power structure thought of him as a dangerous subversive -- the opposite of a patriot.

But somehow people who think like me about Pete Seeger have gotten enough power and influence that suddenly he is being praised and hailed as a great American and patriot on national television.

I am sure this amazes me much more than it does Pete. He has always had faith the country would eventually come around to his way of thinking. He is indeed an embodiment of the best of America and now enough Americans have come around to his way of thinking that he is being praised on national televlision. Amazing!

'Suspicious activity' turns out to be a 'misunderstanding'

An article in today's Dispatch/Argus reveals that we now know the identity of the men who some thought were 'Middle Eastern' looking and 'acting suspiciously' last Sunday at mass at St. Pius X Catholic Church in Rock Island. One of the men recently moved to Rock Island and the others were friends of his visiting because his father had recently died. They are all Catholics and natives of India and had the same purposes and motives for attending church that day as all the other worshipers. Read the newspaper article.

How could the actions of these men be considered 'suspicious' when the men had the same purposes and reasons for being there as everyone else? Apparently there are a lot of people around here whose fear of terrorism is so much greater than the actual threat that they see terrorists where none exist.

Obviously there are downsides to the Bush Administration's encouragement to us to be alert and afraid. Is there any upside? Has a hyperalert citizen noticed something and thereby averted a terrorist attack?

Why are Americans more religious than Europeans?

Everyone knows that by any measure Americans are much more religious than Europeans. But have you ever heard anyone discussing how that situation came to be? I think I might have discovered a clue. I have been reading a recent English translation of a book originally written in German about a century ago: Letters of a German American Farmer by Johannes Gillhoff, translated by Richard Lorenz Augus Trost. Link

This is a book adapted from the letters a schoolteacher in the German town of Mecklenburg received from former students who had emigrated to America, mostly to northeastern Iowa. One of the many things that amazed the Germans back home was how involved with the church these new immigrants had become. Most of the poor people in Mecklenburg, including the families from which these immigrants had come, were not very interested in or involved with the church, even though they were forced by law to attend and pay taxes to the church. The reason for that was that the nobility had total control over the hiring and firing of priests and bishops. As a result the church’s theology and social consciousness reflected the needs and desires of the rulers – not the congregation. The result was a quietist version of Christianity that served the interests of the ruling class but did not speak to or for the common folk.

In America the immigrants discovered that there would be no church for their weddings, christenings and funerals unless they built it themselves. Once they built it they discovered they could have total control over how the church was run including the hiring and firing of the ministers. As a result the church, reflecting their interests and needs, became the center of their lives in a way that amazed their relatives back in Germany.

We now hear some American evangelicals talking about the Separation of Church and State as if it were a conspiracy against religion. They seem to think they want a Christian government, like the ones in Europe in the 19th Century, I suppose.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group of Connecticut Baptist clergy who were worried about state government's persecution of their churches. When that was their concern a complete separation of church and state was exactly what they wanted. Now that they no longer fear persecution by the government they think of that separation as being some sort of attack against them.

Eliminating the Separation of Church and State would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg for American religion.

Why didn’t anyone talk to them?

Readers of this blog who do not presently live in the Quad Cities may not have heard about this incident which occurred at a church in Rock Island with a very distinctive appearance (quite photogenic in fact) which has caused quite a stir:

Police continue to investigate a report of suspicious activity at St. Pius X Church.

Rev. Mike Schaab sent a letter home to parents of Jordan Catholic School students Wednesday warning about "several men of apparently Middle Eastern origin" visiting a Feb. 16 Mass who allegedly took photographs inside the church and its exterior.

Parishioners contacted police with the license plate of one of the cars driven by the men, but Capt. Scott Harris said tracing the plate has been unsuccessful.

…

Rev. Schaab said he does not know what would lead parishioners to describe the men as Middle Eastern as he was not present at the Mass and said he does not think anyone could definitively report their nationality.

Read entire article

Apparently some men, who according to some observers looked ‘Middle Eastern,’ came to mass, took some pictures inside and outside the church and left, without anyone from the congregation talking to them. I am not sure which aspects of that situation the police are investigating but if I was a member of that church I know what I would be concerned about. Why didn’t anyone talk to them? Where was the Greeting Committee or the Welcoming Committee or whatever they call it there? What happened to our famous mid-Western friendliness? Those guys must think that the church has a nice looking building but the people are not very friendly.

Fear sometimes makes fools of us all, but come on people – get a grip. Not every stranger with a dark complexion is a terrorist. If you see a stranger taking a picture of your church hitting them up for a donation is probably a much better idea than reporting them to the police.

Hillary – please stop

A determination to not quit when the going gets tough is, in most situations, an admirable quality. A never-say-die attitude is a common trait among successful people. So it is understandable that Hillary Clinton and her advisors, being people who have accomplished much in their lives, would not just give up when the tide turned against them in their quest for the presidency.

But Hillary needs to stop, look in the mirror, and ask herself what she really believes. Does she really not believe in hope or in the power of words and ideas to inspire and unite? [Hillary claims that words don’t matter. Hillary campaign charges Barak with plagiarism.] Does she really want to still be the nominee if she is not the choice of most of the people who participated in the Democratic primaries and caucuses? [Hillary campaign talks about stealing Barak’s delegates.] Does she really not care whether or not the Democratic nominee wins in November if she is not that nominee? Does she have any principles left or is it now all just about winning?

The Surge is NOT working

John McCain was on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning. Once again he claimed the Surge is working in Iraq but said that we cannot draw down the number of our troops there without all the violence returning. Those two statements are in glaring contradiction to each other and only someone who has forgotten how the Surge was supposed to work and what was promised about it when it started would fail to see that contradiction.

The Surge was supposed to be a temporary increase in the number of US troops that would give the Iraqis time to reach political reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia. Once that political progress was made then the US could reduce the number of troops without the violence returning. If that political reconciliation has not happened, if we cannot reduce the number of troops without a return to violence then the Surge has NOT worked.

The military leaders were telling us that the number of troops pre-Surge was unsustainable. The current levels of troop deployment are doing severe damage to our military readiness and are causing extreme hardship to our military families. John McCain appears unconcerned about the damage being done to our military. He said that withdrawing our troops would allow Al Qaeda to say that they had won – obviously something McCain thinks is worth any price to prevent. Is that how you feel—that we must continue to pay trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in order to prevent someone somewhere from saying something?

The consequences of our abandonment of care for the mentally ill

My brother Dan, who is a graduate of Northern Illinois University and now lives in nearby Rockford, was inspired to write the following by the recent tragic shooting there. He invited me to edit or rewrite it but I could not find any way to improve it:

Tragedies like those at Virginia Tech. and Northern Illinois University stand as horrific monuments to the folly of our country abandoning its mental health care system. We hear the word “senseless” used again and again by a sadly uninformed news media as they search blindly for meaning in these grotesque acts of violence. But for all of us who remember the near complete dismantling of our mental health system by Reagan conservatives during the 1980s, these horrible acts do indeed make sense, they are but a part of a steady stream of violence and tragedy that is filling our prisons with the victims of mental illness. Today’s “prisoners” were once considered “victims,” they were patients cared for and protected from self destruction by our mental health system.

My mother and father are an example of the millions of citizens caught in the middle of our nation’s mental health tragedy. During the great labor shortage caused by the Second World War, my parents responded to the cries for help coming from State Hospitals. They became mental health workers. Indeed they met and married during war time working at a State Hospital. Following the war my father became a Methodist minister but soon returned to join my mother in their newly chosen work as mental health nurses. They planned to devote their lives to this important work.

The 1950s, 60s, and 70s saw great improvements in mental health care and treatment. There was every reason to believe that the 1980s, a time of great national prosperity, should have been a time of even greater progress in mental health. You can imagine the crushing blow felt by my parents and mental health professionals around the country as the Reagan revolution cut off this flourishing progress and indeed caused the closing of mental health facilities and programs around the country. Most of Illinois’ mental hospitals were closed and then reopened as prisons. My parents were forced to find nursing jobs outside of the mental health system and eventually took jobs as nurses at Menard State Prison.

I leave it to the reader to guess at the motivation of Reagan Conservatives for abandoning the nation’s victims of mental illness. It certainly was no great surprise that no money was saved by this vicious backlash against mental illness and the mental health care system. The results were as predicted. Those suffering from mental illness who did not become homeless street people soon found their way into our nation’s prisons where their mental illness was finally confronted (not dealt with) at a much, much greater cost to society.

Today, the typical inmate in U. S. prisons is suffering from mental illness and the percentage of mental illness in our prison population continues to rise. Every study clearly shows that it would cost our society far less money to be proactive than to allow these suffering victims to sink into helplessness and eventually run afoul of the law. Like the now infamous college gunmen, mental illness is nearly always recognized long before these troubled individuals turn their cries for help into acts of violence.

My parents were once a part of an effective mental health care system that was developing and building a support structure for those in our society, like today’s college gunmen, who’s cries for help today echo as the sound of gunfire and senseless death.
-- Dan Barrett

How Republicans really feel about illegal immigrants

If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee for President what does that say about how the voters really feel (as opposed to what they say) about how the United States should deal with illegal immigrants? Both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, presumably in response to their perceptions of how the voters feel on the issue, have over the last few months hardened their positions against illegal immigrants. As governor neither of them instructed their state’s employees to spend very many state resources to ferret out and deport illegal immigrants. Quite the contrary in fact. But on the campaign trail, presumably in response to voter outrage over the issue, both men seemed to be competing with each other over who could sound tougher on the issue.

And yet they have been losing the primaries to John McCain, who still supports providing a path to eventual citizenship to otherwise law-abiding, hard-working illegal immigrants who have established roots in our communities. Obviously not very many voters in the Republican primaries are making getting tough against illegal immigrants their top priority – despite what they may have been telling Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

We have been hearing talk in the media about a supposed effect noted in previous elections in which white voters were more likely to tell pollsters they supported a black candidate than actually voted for that candidate. Apparently that has not been happening very much this year. Perhaps we need a name for the dynamic in which voters convince the media and candidates that they support getting tough and deporting illegal immigrants and then don’t vote for the candidates who espouse that position.

Israeli checkpoints a modern Jim Crow?

There is a letter to the editor of the Quad-City Times by Art Pitz that takes issue with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s recent comments comparing the Palestinians feelings about Israeli checkpoints with her feelings as a southern black under Jim Crow. He claimed that the Israeli policy is a justifiable response to terrorism while Jim Crow was simply a means to maintain white supremacy. link

I wrote the following response:

Mr. Pitz,
You admit that the Palestinians feel about the Israeli checkpoints and other restrictions the same way that African-Americans felt about Jim Crow. You seem to be claiming that there is a fundamental difference between the two situations in how the other side feels about the situation. The Israelis feel that their policies are justified by the threat of terrorism -- the actions of a minority of the Palestinians (the vast majority of Palestinians are just trying to survive in a difficult situation). You contrast this with the situation in the American south during Jim Crow, where you seem to think that the white power structure would have freely admitted that their actions had no justification other than maintaining white supremacy. (You do not state it that way but your argument makes no sense unless that is what you are claiming.)

You should watch the movie 'Birth of a Nation' again. The argument for the Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow by the whites was EXACTLY the same as the Israeli argument for checkpoints, etc. -- acts of violence by a few blacks against whites.

Your argument seems to be that the feelings of the Palestinians are of no importance as long as they do not influence American support for Israeli policies. As long as Americans can be persuaded that the Israeli domination of the Palestinians can be justified then the feelings of the Palestinians can be ignored.

Secretary Rice is right to compare the Palestinians under Israeli occupation to African-Americans under Jim Crow. Jim Crow did not end until a majority of Americans saw television images of little black girls terrorized on their way to school and black teenagers blasted with fire hoses and started to empathize with the African-Americans. The situation for the Palestinians will not change until the majority of Americans start to see the situation through Palestinian eyes. Americans might want to keep that in mind when they think about how few images of Palestinians they see on television.

An end to negative politics?

Wouldn’t it be great if the results of the Democratic primary in South Carolina, where Barak Obama won by a surprisingly large margin, signaled a new trend in American politics where negative, polarizing, attack politics are now counter-productive and almost always back-fire on the candidates that engage in them? Wouldn’t it be great if the new conventional wisdom among the political operatives and the media pundits became that the candidate who is most uniting and inspiring, who is seen to be trying to bring people together rather than pit groups against each other was the one most likely to win?

Although Hillary Clinton as president would be a vast improvement over George Bush and would be much better than any of the Republicans running, I am glad that her campaign’s decision to attack Barak Obama in the way they did in the last couple of weeks seems to have been counter-productive. Take a look at the last year of poll data in South Carolina here.

At the end of November Hillary’s support among voters peaked at 40% and has been sliding ever since. As Hillary’s support started slipping both Barak Obama’s and John Edwards’ numbers increased, so the change was not simply a move to Obama. Voters were deserting Hillary. The Clinton Campaign was obviously reacting to this trend as they went increasingly negative the last few weeks. The apparent result of their attacks was a spectacular rise in support for Barak Obama especially in the last few days where he went from about 45% in the polls a few days ago to 55% of vote yesterday.

Wouldn’t it be great if the result of the South Carolina Democratic primary was the start of a trend that resulted in the political elites coming to view a campaign strategy of trying to increase your opponent’s negatives rather than working to increase your candidate’s positives was something that no longer worked and was a losing strategy?