Pelosi's Ad-Lub

With the bailout plan poised to pass over the weekend, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, walked from her lush Cannon House Office Building suite towards the floor. With prepared remarks in hand that had been distributed to the press, the Speaker fumed as she walked past her Republican colleagues. With what had been weeks of heated debate despite pledges toward bipartisan cooperation, Pelosi could not resist the temptation to jab her counterparts.

As Pelosi was given time to speak, she deviated from her prepared remarks and inserted two significant, partisan sections:

"When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around ... and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free-market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. ..."

"... Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos."

Did these two inserts sway enough votes to make the bailout package fail? Probably not – despite the press conference held afterwards by Republican leadership blaming Pelosi’s comments for the failed bill. But come on Nancy…for the past 15 years Republicans and Democrats have engaged in nuclear warfare and look where it has gotten us – into a mess. Can we not for a few months (dare I say years) work together to fix the sizable problems our country is facing? This is a elementary school spitball contest. It is ‘he-said, she-said.’ Pelosi – you are supposed to be the leader of the United States House of Representatives. Would you please actually lead my country?

Antonin Scalia on 60 Minutes

In an age when the media reports on Lindsay Lohan’s latest exploits and Presidential candidates focus on ‘lipstick on a pig’ during one of the most tumultuous times in American history, I don’t often enjoy watching the nightly news.

I was fortunate to catch the 60 Minutes feature on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday. Long known as a social conservative and a right-leaning Justice, Scalia has often come under fire for his “ultra-conservative” positions and resistance to change. Without having taken the time to look into his background, I accepted these claims at face value. What began as an interview to hype his new book turned out to be an exposé into the Scalia world view and judicial “originalism.”

Scalia interprets the Constitution based on what he believes it originally meant to our Founders who ratified it in 1787 – as opposed to many who interpret what it means to people today. America is one of the few nations in the world that follow common law which incorporates facts and rulings from various cases into the law as a way of keeping governmental power separate and balanced among the three branches. Unlike many so-called activist judges, Scalia does not seek to push an agenda, he hopes to restrict agendas. “The Constitution is not meant to facilitate change, it is meant to impede change.” Progress should instead come by enacting laws which incorporates compromise. Scalia went on to describe his views on flag burning, abortion, and torture.

It was disrespectful how the host, poked and prodded Scalia about the Bush v. Gore case in 2000. She asked him if the decision was based on politics, was it political, did it have political implications. It was frustrating to watch. Regardless of your view of whether or not Bush would have won under a recall, the Supreme Court case was not close. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case was whether the scheme the Florida Supreme Court had put together to stop the recount was Constitutional was not even close – 7-2.”

One of my favorite segments of the show was the discussion of the deep friendship between Justice Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They are two people who hold fundamentally opposite political views and interpret the Constitution very differently. “I respect the people who have (other views), but I think those views are just flat out wrong…I attack ideas, I don’t attack people and some very good people have some very bad ideas.” Scalia is a street-fighter. A self-professed ‘shin-kicker’ and contrarian thinker, Justice Scalia has provided America with the judicial discourse that the Founders had intended for the Supreme Court. As I sat and watched Scalia discuss his world view, the thing that impressed me most was the fact that these Supreme Court Justices – brilliant men and women – can peacefully discuss issues from very different perspectives and at the end of the day have a glass of wine together.

Our Founders intended for us to disagree. They intended for big complex ideas to be debated, discussed, and argued. They didn’t want radical change and so they separated powers and tried to impede potential changes. I disagree with Scalia on some things and agree with him on others, but his originalist view of the Constitution which resists radical change is important in an ever-faster changing world.

Obama Photo Op

If you want a photo-op with the American flag...at least hold the phone right side up.

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907.

Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still disadvantaged.

Door Opener and Bridge Builder

One of the most overlooked aspects of American history is the tension that has existed between democracy and theocracy ever since the Mayflower landed in Plymouth almost 400 years ago. The Pilgrims came to the New World to escape religious persecution but ultimately the U.S. Constitution is a secular document which declares the separation of church and state. In modern times, the counterculture of the 1960s and Roe v. Wade of the 1970s was followed by a religious backlash in the 1980s. Public religious figures have always played interesting roles in American history. Billy Graham was apolitical and was able to gain credibility and influence by not choosing political sides and advising the country on religious issues. Other religious leaders, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, chose to use religion as political power to push conservative agendas.

In one of the most interesting events of the 2008 Presidential Election cycle, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama joined Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren for a civic forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. Between the Jeremiah Wright scandal and the widely-held belief that he is somehow a closet Muslim, Barack Obama has had to repeatedly defend his faith throughout the Presidential campaign. On the other hand, McCain has been criticized for cheating on his first wife and is mistrusted by many conservatives for his moderate social views. The August 16 meeting of this trio seemed an unlikely cast for such an event.

This televised event was a coming out party for Warren who has seen tremendous success as a pastor, author and international networking guru. The forum coronated Warren as America’s most influential and highest-profile church leader. Unlike many religious leaders before him, Warren has clearly chosen to differentiate his stardom from the roles that some leaders from the religious right have played in the public arena. As William Martin, Billy Graham’s biographer notes, “It’s remarkable…the candidates are according him with tremendous status. I don’t see them doing it with an Episcopal bishop or a Cardinal – or another Evangelical.” It is a testament to Warren that both candidates who claim to be “above politics” have chosen to anoint him as the spiritual leader of America.

One of my pet peeves is when people do not say what they mean or mean what they say. It seems hypocritical for some church leaders to favor certain political candidates over others. If churches believe that people should have faith in God to care for us, then it should not matter who is in office; thus, church leaders should not campaign for candidates or care who wins. Stephen Mack notes the obvious hypocrisy: “By linking church and state, you don’t put God in charge of civil society but put the people in charge of the church.” What separates Warren from his fellow politically-active, conservative Evangelicals is his unabashed belief that the government is NOT the most effective way to change the world.

Many of the great movements of our time have been independent of politics. In the summer of 2007, President Bush awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the father of the “Green Revolution”, Dr. Norman Borlaug, for his research in wheat dwarfing, a discovery which has vastly increased the efficiency of wheat growing and thus has significantly helped curtail global food shortages. Agree with him or not, former Vice President Al Gore shunned an opportunity to return to politics to instead pursue the fight against global warming. Politics focuses so much effort on winning and short term gains that the biggest problems of our time often do not get enough attention. This gap has empowered public intellectuals with the role of critiquing current cultural and political events as well as researching, publicizing, and pursuing new, untouched issues.

Despite being the author of the second highest-selling book of all time (after the Bible, with over 50 million copies sold), Warren has no desire to be rich and donates over 90% of his book royalties to Saddleback Church. Despite being the new leader of Christian Conservatives in America and being pastor of a 23,000-member congregation, he has no desire to wield political power, but he DOES want to change the world. His predecessors led Evangelicals to be a domestic political force, but Warren’s vision is to energize and unite churches around the world to be global benefactors. What makes Warren different is that when he talks about mobilizing Christians – he doesn’t mean just on election day nor is he referring only to American Christians – he is referring to the 1 billion Christians worldwide which he believes can join together to fight HIV/AIDS, water shortage, poverty, and hunger. To say the man is ambitious is an understatement.

Political events held in church settings often focus on what he calls “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage. The next President of the United States will have to restore Americans’ faith in the United States and repair the image of the U.S. around the world. The goal of political campaigns is to highlight the differences between candidates, but at the end of the day as Warren says, there is far more that unites us than divides us. The goal of his forum was not to gain political favor for either candidate or power for himself, but to draw awareness to the challenges facing the world over the next generation: poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change, and human rights.

His insistence against choosing political sides will invoke criticism from some but overall will provide him with an unprecedented opportunity to affect sweeping changes in today’s most pressing issues. Public intellectuals from the present and future should take note of how Warren has risen to a position of influence. People recognize his credentials – leading a megachurch and authoring a best-seller – but they take him seriously because of his passion for world issues and his galactic vision about how to improve them. Many people enter the public square with academic credentials, but then politicize their issues and choose sides. Peter Beinart of the New Republic criticizes the use of religion in the public square, “It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them – as much as possible in reason and evidence…otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you.” Politicians lose credibility when their only argument in favor of or against an issue is religion. To retain credibility, Beinart suggests they should check religion at the door. In the same sense, priests who will not check their political views at the door also lose credibility. Rick Warren is showcasing his ability to affect change and get people to listen by focusing on the issues, not on the politics.

Some pastors preach and lead in a very formal matter. Warren has always acknowledged his sin and not tried to act above reproach. He preaches wearing a Hawaiian shirt and is passionate about contemporary worship music. He is a pastor of the people and his audience connects with him and his dreams because he seems like one of them. This down-to-earth and nonpartisan approach gives him credibility as the moral leader in America. Throughout history, religious strife has often divided nations against themselves. At a time when all factions of the American people needs more than ever to reunite under the stars and stripes to overcome some great challenges, I believe Rick Warren says he will be a “door opener and a bridge builder.” There is no doubt he will provide the next President of the United States with advice, wisdom, prayer, and a means to reach all people – regardless of whether they have a 'D' or an 'R' beside their name.

The Separation of Church and Politics

Every American student learns very early in grade school about our country’s religious freedom. The Founding Fathers formed a government based on the freedom to worship as they pleased.

America was no doubt founded on Christian principles but it is unfair to say that America was founded as a Christian nation. It is true that the Declaration of Independence mentions “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence,” but only in the context of presenting the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” – NOT to endorse Christianity. Contrary to popular opinion, “One nation under God” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954 and “In God We Trust” was not printed on American currency until 1956. If we were truly a Christian nation, our governing document, the U.S. Constitution, would proclaim it. However, there is not a single mention of God or Christianity. In fact, The Bill of Rights forbade the creation of a state religion and permitted the free exercise of any religion by any and all of its citizens. The framers of our Constitution and of the “great experiment” were well aware of religious intolerance around the world and wanted no part of it so they wisely established the first government in history which separated church and state. In 1797, the American government under George Washington formed a treaty with Tripoli which said that the “government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The Founding Fathers sought to create a democracy and meritocracy where people could freely worship whatever religion they chose. There was little tension between church and government for over one hundred fifty years until the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1948 (McCollum v. Board of Education) which declared that religious instruction in public schools is unconstitutional. Ever since, many Christian activists have fought hard to preserve their influence on society despite the ruling.

In the past sixty years, we have seen ever greater separation of church and state. Prayer, reading the Bible, and displaying the Ten Commandments have all been forbidden from public schools. Banning the teaching of evolution and requiring the teaching of creationism are now both unconstitutional as well. Despite these obvious separations of church and state, there has definitely not been separation of church and politics. As a backlash to the perceived secularism of the Supreme Court in the 20th century, religious conservatives have become more vocal and more active in making sure “thy will be done” in American politics.

Environmentalists are a special interest group; so is the National Rifle Association. Churches and religious organizations are NOT. Karl Rove is a political whiz and a brilliant campaign strategist but he dangerously energized the religious conservatives in America by convincing them that they are in fact a special interest group and need to stand up and do something about it.

By energizing the “base” of the Republican Party in such a way, religion has now become one of the most pertinent aspects of American voting. The Constitution’s one codified statement regarding religion says that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Although this statute refers to the eligibility to run for office, the American electorate continues to impose its own litmus test on candidates. Every election cycle, candidates from both parties are grilled on their faith and how it affects their morals and decisions. In 1960, then-Senator John F. Kennedy made his famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to assuage concerns about his Catholic faith. In 2004, Democratic Presidential candidate, Governor Howard Dean, was derailed after being unable to name a book of the New Testament and admitting that he had not attended church in years. In 2008, Governor Mitt Romney was relentlessly criticized by Christian groups for his Mormon faith. It is outrageous that the American electorate reviews political candidates through such xenophobic glasses since our nation was founded on the concept that we elect candidates who are trustworthy, share our values and views, and have the intellect and leadership to represent our interests.

I do not for a moment want to suggest that I am anti-religion or realistically believe that religion and politics will ever be separated. Religion, ethics, and morality have had extremely positive effects on the American society. “It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them – as much as possible in reason and evidence…otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you.” Billy Graham is one of the most well-known and well-respected political figures in American history. He has been a very effective public intellectual – setting aside politics to assume the role of America’s pastor. In private letters with President Eisenhower, Graham offered Ike very nonpartisan advice advised about how to address racial injustice in America.

The often-mythical American Dream is supposed to enable a person with any background to work hard and their ambitions will come to fruition. What does it say then about the United States that we preach this American Dream but then footnote it by saying that if you are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or an Atheist – your political aspirations are restricted – regardless of your ability or predilection to lead? I understand people’s attraction toward candidates that share their values – political, religious, or otherwise – but dismissing candidates based solely on race, religion, or gender is wrong. In two very similar speeches, Governor Mitt Romney and then-Senator John F. Kennedy made similar points – that faith and morality matter more than doctrine. The Bible tells us that we are all God’s children and He views us as equal. If the hypocrites would examine their own faith, they would recognize that not only the Constitution but the Holy Bible urges us to do so. If we truly are ‘all created equal’ and were treated as such, these men would not have needed to deliver such speeches.

In one sense, JFK broke the religion barrier in national politics in a similar fashion to how Jackie Robinson broke the race barrier in baseball. The difference is that after Robinson joined Major League Baseball, the door opened to many other African American athletes. Almost fifty years after JFK was elected, however, non-Christian politicians are still run out of town – regardless of their qualifications. I look forward to the day when candidates can say what they mean, mean what they say, and have an electorate vote for the right reasons.