Now things will be less disasterous

Everyone is oh-so-excited that the democrats are now the majority in the house and senate. Yes, that is good. Very nice. However, fellow citizens of the United States, lets not get tooo excited that 1) democracy has somehow prevailed and is working wonderfully and 2) that now the amazing Democrats are going to usher in a new era of peace and justice.

I mean, the current administration and the supporting Republican Congress have taken us to war under false pretenses (I think that is probably a generous characterization), ignored the Geneva Conventions, tortured people, sent people (sometimes innocent - oops!) to other countries to be tortured, instituted tax cuts for the richest people in the country, sort of ignored key parts of the constitution, added “signing statements” to many laws that essentially say, “We aren’t really going to follow this all the time,” came to power in two at least troubled if not questionable elections, and has done all sorts of other really quite unusually bad things. So it isn’t some sort of miracle or triumph of democracy that the Democrats are now in control of both houses of Congress. In fact, I think it shows just how low our expectations are that an administration and supporting congress can do such amazingly problematic things and then when the Democrats take back both houses (by a not a hugely wide margin and with in relatively close races) that everyone is all like “Yay! The era of Republican reign has ended! The American people stood up for peace and justice.” (There is an editorial in this week’s Nation to this effect.) I think that this shows that U.S. citizens are not dead. After years and years of a horrible, ill-conceived, badly executed war, folks were finally like, “Hmm. Guess this isn’t going so well.” It could be worse, I suppose.

Which leads to my second point - the Democrats are not exactly a super-great exciting option. They were really the ONLY other option. So, while it is nice that the American people managed to vote Democrats in before the U.S. completely absolutely ruined the rest of the world, it was a little late and it is not clear to me that the Democrats are really tons better. I like to think of them as less horrible. If you have hopes of some sort of fair, just society where the United States doesn’t wreak havoc on the environment and less powerful nations, and where the U.S. is a strong proponent of basic human rights (as in the UN human rights declaration), I’m afraid that the Democrats are pretty useless. I think the best we can hope for is a slightly less unfair society (maybe), and that we wreak slightly less havoc on the world. I predict at least a decade of damage control. And the Democrats should be honest about this so that people don’t get their hopes up. So, I know this is not very cheerful, but I was really disappointed with Pelosi and The Nation and people all over the place doing a jig of joy that the American people somehow are great stewards of democracy because they FINALLY managed to realize that things were going TERRIBLE, and I am disappointed with the Democrats in that they are acting like they are some sort of revolution from the camp of peace and justice. They are not as bad as the Bush administration and the Eepublicans that supported him, but they are in the pockets of the corporations, will do a little bit to help some regular people a little bit, and will probably try to do something that lessens the destruction of the planet and the resulting humanitarian crises that are resulting and will continue to result from this.

I’ll stop now, but I really want to make a point about how important it is to keep our eyes set on real change - to appreciate that things will be less catastrophic and that the dems will attempt damage control - but to realize that real change and a functioning democracy are far off and will take years if not decades of persistent, well-funded progressive grassroots work.

Tax dollars paying for dancer for the marines. Great.

I know that since the war in Iraq costs about $1.1 billion every day, I should not be fretting about the relatively low cost of bringing dancers to entertain marines, but I still really don’t like it. I read about it in this article in The New York Times. I am all for doing things to keep the troops entertained and morale up. I’m not even against sexy female dancers in general, although I can’t say I love the idea either. But I am against the government paying for sexy female dancers to go to Iraq to entertain the troops and “keep morale up.” As if the military doesn’t already have enough problems with women being seen as equal, treated fairly, etc. If you read the article in the times alongside the case of Suzanne Swift eventually went AWOL from the military after being sexually harassed and treated just horrible clearly because she was a woman, then the whole having dancers flown in for the Marines seems even more problematic. Of course, it is a small blip on the screen of horrors related to Iraq and I don’t mean to minimize all the other much more tragic things that have happened. But still. I don’t like it one bit.

Progressive Strategy: Mitigating Harm or Changing the System?

George Lakoff became sort of a progressive/liberal rock star with his idea of framing which I found helpful. But his new book Whose Freedom? raises conundrums like this one pointed out by Robert Jensen in The Limits of Lakoff’s Politics: Outside the Frame:

Lakoff’s “frame,” simply stated is:

(1) Right-wing Republicans are the cause of our problems, and

(2) progressives working through the Democratic Party will deliver the solutions.

So, out the window must go any facts or analyses that suggest

(1) the problems of an unjust and unsustainable world may be rooted in fundamental systems, such as corporate capitalism and the imperialism of powerful nation-states, no matter who is in power, and

(2) the Democratic Party is not only not a meaningful vehicle for progressive politics but, as a subsidiary of that corporate system with its own history and contemporary practice of empire-building, is part of the problem.

Geesh, I wish solutions/approaches to some sort of solution were easier. Do we try to dismantle the whole system of oppression that is just HUGE and rich and mean and ruthless, or do we make do and try to reduce the amount of harm done by such a system? I always shake my head at revolutionary types that (it seems naively) think we can sort of undo capitalism-as-we-know-it. Yet, it also feels sort of like selling out if we resign ourselves to just try to mitigate the harm done by the system, which is really all that can be done if the capitalism-U.S.-military-corporation-materialism-WTO-IMF complex remains intact. And I know that we could try to do both, but there are limited resources for what we do and so if we split them between making-do and dismantling-the-system, we may make little progress on either. What would “revolution” even look like, I wonder? I will try to look into that and see. In the meantime, over at the progressive strategy blog, they are thinking about this is much more sophisticated ways. Read a more in-depth discussion of things over there.

Making Progress in Ohio for Progressives - Take Back Cincinnati

I’ve been wondering what I can do for the midterm elections and I’ve found it. I’m originally from Ohio and there is a competitive race in Cincinnati between Republican incumbent Steve Chabot and the Democratic challenger John Cranley (www.johncranley.com). I’m going to be guest blogging on Cranley’s campaign blog Take Back Cincinnati www.takebackcincinnati.com and helping to do online campaigning where I can. I think Cranley is not just an acceptable alternative to a very unappealing Republican, but he is actually a really exciting candidate. For once, it isn’t the lesser of two evils, but there is actually a good choice.

Cranley lives in the Price Hill neighborhood of Cincinnati, which has traditionally been the neighborhood where Appalachian folks have migrated to in order to get jobs in the city. I love it that he lives IN the city with the folks. Cranley is also a graduate of Harvard Divinity School where I am currently studying and a place that I truly think does an excellent job of preparing people to think and reflect ethically. (He also graduated from Harvard Law School.) I really feel like he will do an excellent job as a member of the House of Representatives, giving the folks of Cincinnati the representation that they deserve. Of course, it is easy to do a much better job than Chabot who has, just to name a few things, continually advocated for a cut in estate taxes, has “serious reservations” about raising the minimum wage, has failed to criticize the Bush administration’s policies related to national security, voted to on allow school prayer during the so-called War on Terror (Nov 2001), and voted to make it a federal crime to transport minor girls across state lines in order to get an abortion. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Want to help get John Cranley elected? You can do your little part by writing a little blurb on your blog about him and linking to www.takebackcincinnati.com. Do your part for Ohioans who deserve just, ethical representation in the House of Representatives.

An evangelical pastor who rejects the marriage of Christianity and the Republican Party

This New York Times article covers a very brave pastor in Minnesota who dared to challenge the assumption on the part of many Christians out there that the Republicans party and Christianity should be closely intertwined.

Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword”” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,”” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.

I was especially appreciative of this quote: “He said there were Christians on both the left and the right who had turned politics and patriotism into ‘idolatry.’” If you aren’t familiar with Christian conservative churches, turning things into idols - clothes, money, popularity - is a big thing that folks are counseled against. I’m not a huge fan of the “idol” language myself, but all and all, I think it works and has a good effect in Christian churches when used responsibly - it offers language to say “Hey, you aren’t focusing on the important stuff.”

One final quote that I found to be quite wise and I really wish would pick up more steam in evangelical/fundamentalist circles across the country:

In his six sermons, Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek “power over” others by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars. Christians should instead seek to have “power under” others “winning people’s hearts” by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did, Mr. Boyd said.

I’m not saying I’m totally in love with Pastor Boyd. But thank goodness for someone willing to remind folks that Jesus was not a freaking Republican.

Amen.

Senior Iraqi Official Says, "the break up of the country is inevitable."

I read in The Independent yesterday a story not so much covered by mainstream U.S. Media.

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, meets Tony Blair in London today as violence in Iraq reaches a new crescendo and senior Iraqi officials say the break up of the country is inevitable….. “Iraq as a political project is finished,” a senior government official was quoted as saying, adding: “The parties have moved to plan B.” He said that the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking at ways to divide Iraq between them and to decide the future of Baghdad, where there is a mixed population. “There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into [Shia] east and [Sunni] west,” he said.

I suppose we can hope that this will make things better for the country that the United States so mercifully “liberated.” Of course, the problem remains that a big oil field is in the north under Kurdish control, and one in the south under Shia control, leaving the Sunnis with no oil field. That will not likely go so smoothly.

You can read the article here http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1193108.ece

Sad

It is just so sad and frustrating to watch the Middle East crumble. I, of course, do not think that people should go around abducting soldiers no matter who is being abducted and who is abducting. However, no matter who took your soldiers and no matter how much you love them and want them back, it doesn’t seem to be fair to then to kill lots of civilians on the other side in order to get back your soldiers (even if that actually would get back your soldiers, which does not seem all that likely). It says, essentially, “Hey, the lives of a very few of our people are just way more important than the lives of a very lot of civilians on the other side” which doesn’t seem right. I think it is the whole proportionality thing. You can’t just bomb a whole freaking country, or even parts of it, just because some people take a very few number of your soldiers. And, plus, I’m sorry, but has anyone not figured out that increased military action DOES NOT equal more stability and safety? This goes for both Israel and the U.S. There is not a military solution to Al Queda nor to the issue of Israel being smack dab in the middle of a bunch of Islamic/Arab countries. I mean, even if it did work it probably wouldn’t be something I advocated, but it not only doesn’t seem like the best solution in a ethical sort of sense, but it practically doesn’t achieve the desired results. I know these are not amazingly deep insights, but still important things to be said. And, plus, I do my best blogging when I have something far more pressing to work on, like the sermon that I should be writing right now….

Take That Left Wing Freak Show Back to Where it Belongs

I am preparing a sermon titled Radical Love: Responding to the Christian Right to give at First Parish in Cambridge on Sunday, and, eventually, after some tweaking (I find the second time I give a sermon it is usually sooo much better) I’ll give it at FUUSM.

This leads me to point out what I think is a key quote of our times. It comes from an ad against Howard Dean that was run in Iowa. It goes like this:

A farmer says he thinks that “Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading …” before the farmer’s wife then finishes the sentence: “… Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.”

This represents, I think, the vision that *some* people have about a cultural divide in our country. I know that some of my lovely relatives in Kentucky might not feel very far from where the farmer and his wife are. And I’m sure that there is some equally catchy phrase that more liberal leaning folks could come up with to make fun of or point out the very different-ness of those who are more conservative. My sermon goes to the heart of what I study in religion and what I envision my ministry and life to be: I do not think that conservatives are somehow different people than liberal people. I think that all people want to be loved, want to raise their families in safety, want to connect somehow to the divine, want to have a purpose in life, want to have fun, and so on. The challenge for me and, I think, for our country and the future of our democracy, and our faith (that is UUism, but really the challenge to all faiths) is to find a way to better understand the ways that we are all journeying along trying to do this sense-making and find ways to build bridges of understanding and to increase awareness and knowledge about those things that seem amazingly (and scarily) different to us. I am, I am sure, to many in my hometown in Ohio and maybe to some of my family in KY who love me dearly, somewhat of a left-wing freak show. I am a latte-drinking, New York Times reading, vegetarian, recycling-everything, Unitarian Universalist, pro-reproductive justice, pro-queer, feminist bisexual. Yet, to those in my family who might be more politically and culturally conservative, I am just Elizabeth because they know me. I am not an other. We disagree, but there is not a complete rift because we are people to each other.

So, to me (usually, when I am being mindful) conservative Christian, mega-church attending, anti-choice, Republican, farming, Fox-news-watching, Bible-reading folks in Kentucky and Ohio (and around the country) are not “other” to me because I grew up around them and I know and love many of them and know they are not a freak show, but are real people struggling to make sense of their worlds. They may be less-informed, but it is typically not mean-spirited. I am not suggesting that this is The Answer to what can appear to be a deep cultural and political divide in our country, but I believe that it is the start of that. Seeing people as people, seeking to be in community with them. Seeking to truly love them in the spirit of unconditional love - the inherent dignity and worth of all people - and, really, seeing the beauty of all people. I think that the so-called culture wars will never be won if they are understood as wars or battles or red state vs. blue state. We need to be in community, real community, with people who are different than us. Conversation will cause conversion. Not force and not making fun of people or lamenting about them (ahem, I do this far too much) in the privacy of our own homes and insular communities.

Lack of Posts

Friends and readers, The lack of posts lately comes from a bit of a feeling of “what good could it possibly do.” I know, I know. Blogs are not meant to change the world, rather it is just one way to learn, share thoughts, etc. But, with the Middle East sort of crumbling into madness and the increasing realization that the Bush administration is really not just a bad presidency but is, in many ways, doing deep deep irreparable harm to our country, democracy and world… well, it just feels a little miniscule to post my thoughts here while Rome is burning, so-to-speak. Also my internet is not acting correctly, which makes it even more annoying for things not to load or to time out, etc. But, never fear, I will be back. If anyone thinks of a way to do something about all the madness around us (the globe heating up, the U.S. torturing people regularly, Israel and that whole situation, Iraq, Iran, AIDS in Africa, etc.) do post a comment here or post a suggestion on your own blog. I know, I know. We can only do our small little resistances and hope for the best. But that sure is feeling inadequate right now. I just have this really strong feeling that my children will say, “Mama, tell us again what it was like during the Bush regime,” and I will tell them that my response was to blog about it and lament about it every day. And preach a sermon on it every once in a while. And they will wonder why we didn’t do more and I will try to explain that we didn’t know what to do. Except by then the Middle East will have imploded, there will be no more California or Florida, or Amsterdam or Venice or New Orleans (they will all be under water because Antarctica has melted) and democracy will be something we use with quotes around it in the U.S. As in the U.S. “democracy.” As Chalice Chick often says on her blog, sigh.

p.s. Sorry if this depresses anyone. I will be more optimistic soon. Sometimes I just run out of optimism juice.

Progressive Strategy, or Thinking About How to Make World that Will Not Go Up in Flames Soon

While all UUs are certainly not politically progressive, I think it is fair to say that a bunch of us are. Thus, I imagine there are some of you out there interested in the sort of work my partner does with the Progressive Strategy Studies Project http://progressive-strategy.blogspot.com/. W. keeps me updated on what is going on out there as progressives fantasize, er, I mean think about the possibility of progressive politics being a viable movement (that does positive good, rather than simply mitigate harm) before the earth and all its people go up in flames, either literally or figuratively. The PSSP seeks to contribute to the construction of an effective grand strategy for building progressive power in the United States. I think it is key that here progressive means “left” and not center-left or center or almost-Republican-only-not-quite. W. recently pointed out a lovely and wonderful quote by Robert Reich to me that really touches upon this:

If you want to be a malleable politician, you campaign from the center. But if you want to be a leader, you define the center. You don’t rely on polls to tell you where to go. At best, polls tell you where people are, and it’s pointless to lead people to where they already are. The essence of political leadership is focusing the public’s attention on the hard issues that most would rather avoid or dismiss. We know the problems that need fixing. Centrism is bogus. There’s no well-defined consistent political center in America. (from Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America)

It seems like the future of progressive politics in general lies in the possibility of actual leaders who are willing to speak truth to power and not get all political-strategied out by people saying “Oooo, don’t be too radical. Don’t say anything that will scare X demographic or turn off Y group.” And then you get people like Kerry and Gore coming off as wishy-washy stiff nothings and we have G.W. Bush as our president. As the German saying goes, “Now you have your salad.”

That said, leadership toward more progressive (or at least less disastrous?) policy in the U.S. is not going to happen overnight. Leadership involves more than being good from the podium. We need to work at the grassroots level, talking to people about the reality of their lives. People are poor. Struggling. Have no health insurance. No safety net. There must be some way to work with this reality and help folks understand that it does not HAVE to be like this. I was always impressed with the way that Campus Crusade for Christ and like organizations managed to recruit LOTS of people to Jesus through kind, thoughtful, cheerful, outreach. There must be a way to do that sort of outreach, only not to (as Crusaders would say) to win over hearts for Jesus, but rather to win over people’s hearts to voting and leaning political toward leaders, parties, and policies that are in their own self-interest (health care, safety net, etc.), rather than guided by hot-button issues like abortion, GLBT issues, terrorism, etc.

So, the PSSP is in the progress of collecting and maping contemporary strategic thinking of the American left, in hopes of revealing strategic gaps or contradictions that can be pointed out and addressed. The project focuses on actual strategy. It cracks me up to read some “strategy” pieces that W. shows me where the strategy is something like “Win elections” or “get universal health care approved” or “convince people Republicans are bad.” These, my friends, are not strategies. For more on progressive strategy, visit the blog for the PSSP at http://progressive-strategy.blogspot.com/.
written by one of the most brilliant, savvy, smart, and cute political scientist out there (who also, ahem, happens to be my partner).

Peace out my fellow journeyers.