Given the fact that several conservative Christian talk show hosts seem to dominate the news media when it comes to the integrating market theory economic politics and religion, perhaps it might be well to ask, is there really such a nexus? It seems almost like sugar and Frosted Flakes anymore. The sugar comes along with the cereal.
Yet it is very difficult to immerse oneself in the New Testament and surface, with any confidence at all, as to free market capitalism having anything to do with the teachings of Christ. In fact as a conservative Christian friend of mine once noted in Sunday School, "Its pretty obvious that Christianity leans towards communism." The unfortunate part of the comment was the use of the word "communism" which is generally associated with U.S.S.R. and Communist China. I believe what he meant was something which perhaps could better be labeled "communalistic" connoting communes. With that definition, I believe it is pretty hard to deny the truth of the assertion.
I also remember the comment of a retired Congregational minister made after a rather rousing community battle over funding a recreational center in town. He said, "You know the older I get the more Marxist, I get." Kind of a shocking statement given the "opiate of the masses" comment in the Communist Manifesto.
What these men, conservative men at that, were trying to get their arms around was the fact that it is difficult to annex Christianity to an economic system which views competition, ambition and greed as virtues. What they also were expressing was the inherent difficulty of taming the economic tiger we Americans are riding. How does one get off such a tiger safely. The answer is, we don't know how to get off the tiger. This fear of the dismount impacts nearly every economic reform issue of significance in America from the estate tax to reform of the health care funding.
The situation is reminiscent of the scene in Dante's Inferno where people are tied to chairs with one arm strapped down and the other strapped to a long spoon in such a manner as to disallow one to bend the elbow. In the middle of the table is a cauldron of tempting soup, however, no one can feed themselves, but only their neighbor because of the way the spoons are attached to their arm. The upshot is that they all sit around the table in eternal hunger. There is an element of that in American behaviour. For example, some will recall a widely published anecdote that was circulated by the John Birch Society during the Cold War. The anecdote involves a servant sneaking away from his master's house to attend a meeting of communists. According to the story, the servant listens to the presentation and then sneaks back home. The servant's attendance at the meeting, however, does not go unnoticed by the master who then asks his servant why he did not join up, and the servant replies that he calculated how much would go into the common pot and realized that he would be economically worse off when the property was redistributed. The point the John Birchers were making was that for many people, possibly even menial labor in some cases, they would be economically worse off if property and wealth were shared. But, there is a hidden attitude in the story, namely, a person would only be willing to share if it betters himself and not if there is a possibility that it will not.
This attitude, which permeates nearly all political and economic policy discussions in America, is, I believe, tied to how we define "success." In America we define "success" primarily in economic terms, namely how much money we have and make. With that mindset, it is very difficult to make Christianity and free market capitalism blend well without one or the other being moderated. The Christian right has opted to moderate Christianity in order to accommodate, capitalism rather than the other way around. The Christian left has been relatively quiet and inactive since the heady protest days of the Viet Nam war.
As a result of the blending of capitalism and religion by the Christian right, the key challenge for American Christians is whether our definition of "success" can be substantially altered and whether Americans are in fact willing to make the socio-economic changes necessary to bring that definition from theory to reality. So long as the current blend of economics and Christianity being espoused by the Christian right dominates religious discussion in this area, it will be difficult to bring the teachings of Christ as to wealth and community into alignment with reality in America.
It will also require that that the Christian left to make the point that Christ taught about temporal things other than abortion and traditional marriage, and that will be a call that really puts the followers of Christ to test because it will require an attitude change so that the servant in the John Birch story approaches the issue with a different perspective. The change will require Christians to think about fundamental changes in their lives rather than a relatively sacrifice free faith which only calls upon them not to commit sex related sins, defend traditional marriage, and eschew pornography. It will require Christians to actually fundamentally change their relationship with their community and it will, in some cases, require a willingness to make a sacrifice as to their standard of living and consumption habits -- but if a Christian refuses to do so, they will be betting their soul on whether they are right about capitalism.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
"Success" and Morality
I am becoming more and more of the opinion that a sustainable morality for the future must be dependent upon a new definition of "success" in America. There have been several attempts at trying to redefine "success" in American history. Those which have been the most enduring have required significant sacrifice and a religious base. That may an odd statement for a self-avowed liberal to make, but I strongly feel that it is true.
Religion gives such efforts the power to endure and they tend to fail only when they are subjected to immense social pressure to change from outside of the group making the attempt. In some, this causes them to become even more entrenched and stubborn and endure -- like the Amish. In others, the group may weigh the chances of enduring against the chances of surviving -- and they slowly let their definition start to slip away. Unfortunately, we Mormons may be in the latter group. But, we have plenty of good company in that regard.
So, how do we define "success"? Well, in America "success" is part of an economic game -- he who makes the most money and wields the most influence wins the game. We keep score by the lines on our resume, the money in our bank account or stock portfolios, what kind of car we drive, what kind of house or houses we own, what schools our children attend, etc. Related to the definition of "success" is the definition of "progress." "Progress" is defined primarily in terms of materialism, and it means getting more of the same quicker and easier with an improvement in either quality or price. As a result, we look primarily to technological advancement.
In Mormonism we talk about the "iron rod" meaning a very straight kind of railing that we need to hold onto to make it to Eternal Life. The "iron rod" being the Gospel. This scene is accompanied by a rather dirty river that languishes slowly along side the walkway for us to slip into and be lost -- that refers to sin. And on the other side of the river are people in a fancy building partying, jeering at those on the path by the rod, and laughing, etc. This being worldliness.
In a drawing or a vision this seems pretty easy to understand, kind of black and white. Either you are making progress by holding onto the rod and staying on the path, or you are getting dirty in the river and heading for the fancy building. In vision its pretty simple, in life it is not quite that simple. You can have more than one rod, in fact you can replace the rod with a conveyor belt that carries you along without a whole lot of effort on your part. The trick is determining whether the conveyor belt is following the rod or taking you on a tour of the building, and trying to determine whether you are getting dirt on you from the river or some kind of cleaning agent.
As a result, we Mormons suffer from some of the same problems as the rest of the world. Many of us define ourselves in terms of what taboos or checkmarks we observe, for example: do we pay a full and honest tithe, do we keep the Word of Wisdom, do we attend Church, do we read the scriptures, do we pray, do we hold family home evening, are we honest at work, do we keep the Sabbath day holy, do we avoid promiscuity, etc. And we tally up the checkmarks on a regular basis and then determine whether we are on the right conveyor belt.
We assume in that regard that if we are able to give the correct answer to the multitude of questions that we must be on the right conveyor belt. And if we stay on that conveyor belt it is quite alright to also play the American game and keep score in the traditional American way. But what if... what if keeping score in that manner means we are on the wrong conveyor belt. What if it means that we start totally ignoring those we are passing as we travel along? What if we start believing that if we keep the taboos and stay on the conveyor that those who are on a nearby conveyor and have not been very successful in the game are deserving of their fate? What if we begin to believe that the American way, is the only way?
What if we start emphasizing how neat we look in our well pressed white shirts and business suits?
Somehow, I don't think that Christ is going to be pleased with us in that case. Somehow, I don't think that He is going to be pleased at all that His people look like something polished by Madison Avenue. I could be wrong, but somehow, I don't think that I am, and that getting back to basics doesn't just mean reading the Scriptures -- but redefining ourselves and our country. And part of that redefinition is going to have to be scrapping our current definition of "success" and our current definition of "progress" and looking back at where we started from and how we defined "success" back then and whether we have in truth progressed? Do we define "progress" in terms of the number of tithe payers we have, or the size of our membership, or people with Temple recommends, or the number of our Temples? Or was there a time when we were community focused and trying to devise a new way to live with each other on not only a spiritual basis, but a temporal basis?
But, I guess we can defer all that to Millennium can't we? or can we?
Religion gives such efforts the power to endure and they tend to fail only when they are subjected to immense social pressure to change from outside of the group making the attempt. In some, this causes them to become even more entrenched and stubborn and endure -- like the Amish. In others, the group may weigh the chances of enduring against the chances of surviving -- and they slowly let their definition start to slip away. Unfortunately, we Mormons may be in the latter group. But, we have plenty of good company in that regard.
So, how do we define "success"? Well, in America "success" is part of an economic game -- he who makes the most money and wields the most influence wins the game. We keep score by the lines on our resume, the money in our bank account or stock portfolios, what kind of car we drive, what kind of house or houses we own, what schools our children attend, etc. Related to the definition of "success" is the definition of "progress." "Progress" is defined primarily in terms of materialism, and it means getting more of the same quicker and easier with an improvement in either quality or price. As a result, we look primarily to technological advancement.
In Mormonism we talk about the "iron rod" meaning a very straight kind of railing that we need to hold onto to make it to Eternal Life. The "iron rod" being the Gospel. This scene is accompanied by a rather dirty river that languishes slowly along side the walkway for us to slip into and be lost -- that refers to sin. And on the other side of the river are people in a fancy building partying, jeering at those on the path by the rod, and laughing, etc. This being worldliness.
In a drawing or a vision this seems pretty easy to understand, kind of black and white. Either you are making progress by holding onto the rod and staying on the path, or you are getting dirty in the river and heading for the fancy building. In vision its pretty simple, in life it is not quite that simple. You can have more than one rod, in fact you can replace the rod with a conveyor belt that carries you along without a whole lot of effort on your part. The trick is determining whether the conveyor belt is following the rod or taking you on a tour of the building, and trying to determine whether you are getting dirt on you from the river or some kind of cleaning agent.
As a result, we Mormons suffer from some of the same problems as the rest of the world. Many of us define ourselves in terms of what taboos or checkmarks we observe, for example: do we pay a full and honest tithe, do we keep the Word of Wisdom, do we attend Church, do we read the scriptures, do we pray, do we hold family home evening, are we honest at work, do we keep the Sabbath day holy, do we avoid promiscuity, etc. And we tally up the checkmarks on a regular basis and then determine whether we are on the right conveyor belt.
We assume in that regard that if we are able to give the correct answer to the multitude of questions that we must be on the right conveyor belt. And if we stay on that conveyor belt it is quite alright to also play the American game and keep score in the traditional American way. But what if... what if keeping score in that manner means we are on the wrong conveyor belt. What if it means that we start totally ignoring those we are passing as we travel along? What if we start believing that if we keep the taboos and stay on the conveyor that those who are on a nearby conveyor and have not been very successful in the game are deserving of their fate? What if we begin to believe that the American way, is the only way?
What if we start emphasizing how neat we look in our well pressed white shirts and business suits?
Somehow, I don't think that Christ is going to be pleased with us in that case. Somehow, I don't think that He is going to be pleased at all that His people look like something polished by Madison Avenue. I could be wrong, but somehow, I don't think that I am, and that getting back to basics doesn't just mean reading the Scriptures -- but redefining ourselves and our country. And part of that redefinition is going to have to be scrapping our current definition of "success" and our current definition of "progress" and looking back at where we started from and how we defined "success" back then and whether we have in truth progressed? Do we define "progress" in terms of the number of tithe payers we have, or the size of our membership, or people with Temple recommends, or the number of our Temples? Or was there a time when we were community focused and trying to devise a new way to live with each other on not only a spiritual basis, but a temporal basis?
But, I guess we can defer all that to Millennium can't we? or can we?
Mormons at the Gates
Just thought that title would get everyone's attention. This article is intended to indicate why Mormons tend to be assumed to be Republican. Some political commentators would even tend to think of Mormondom as a "wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP" (Not my phrase, it was a phrase which the Vice President of the American Evangelicals used to describe how people felt about the political stance of the Evangelicals -- but Mormons for some strange reason get dumped into the same political pot with the Evangelicals who deny that Mormons are even Christian.)
Mormons tend to be busy. They have their work, above average sized families, and Church callings that frequently take up most of their spare time. As a result they get their political awareness in sound bites and inferences drawn from clear Church stances on a very few political issues. Although Mormons are warned prior to the heavy onset of national political campaigns, not to ascribe endorsement of any candidate or party to the Church -- many would feel such an ascription would probably be of minimal value anyway, since most members have a radar lock on who they are going to support based on sound bites.
So how does that happen? Certain issues like abortion and gay marriage are routinely brought up by the Republicans. The Church's stance if read closely is not necessarily inconsistent with pro-Choice or at least responsible pro-Choice. I would suspect that there are only a minimal number of Mormons who are radically pro-Life. But, the Church, and rightly so, considers abortion to be a very, very grave decision -- and if it is a gratuitous abortion (where the pregnancy is not a result of incest or rape, necessary because the mother's life is in danger, or involves an extremely impaired embryo) then the woman may well be in serious jeopardy of her standing in the Church. So when abortion is mentioned, most Mormons are going to click on gratuitous abortions and make inferences about pro-Choice politicians which may or may not be correct. They may not have the time or wish to devote the time to figure out exactly where the politician stands.
Because of the centrality of the marriage covenant to Mormon beliefs, the Church feels compelled to speak out against Gay Marriage. With respect to Gay Marriage the gloves are more likely to be taken off and actual political activism encouraged. That does not, however, mean the Church is saying vote for this candidate or that candidate -- it is merely trying to denounce Gay Marriage. So when Gay Marriage comes up, most Mormons are going to take a peak at which party or candidate is advocating or fighting against Gay Marriage. Once that quick observation is made by the individual Mormon, they can then pull their head back into their ordered shell and move on to other matters in life. They may not feel they have the time to figure out what the other issues may be.
Outside of these "morality" issues, the Church tends to rarely get involved in politics -- it did oppose the ERA and it also opposed the MX Missile system since that would have directed all of the USSR's nuclear missiles at Mormondom.
The ecumenical outreach programs that were assigned to Dallin Oakes when he was called to the Quorum of the Twelve sought to reach out to the Protestant Christians and Christian Fundamentalists in particular. Whether that was wise or not is hard to say, I assume there was a good reason for doing so. On the other hand, the most vehement persecution of the Mormon Church has never come from the liberals or from the left, it has always come from the conservatives and from the right. Its like Mormons have taken "turn the other cheek" to a whole new level like, "here's the other cheek, top of my head, my back, my knees, etc." Out here in Vermont you hardly ever hear anti-Mormon attacks, back in Indiana the attacks from various fundamentalists and other Protestants was constant and vicious.
But now, the Christian right has a problem. For a number of years now they have been able to count on two regions as part of the power base: the South and the Rocky Mountain West. The South being represented by the Evangelicals and the Rocky Mountain West by the Mormons. They have certainly not been above using the Mormons as a political cudgel to bash and batter the liberals, and since the Christian right is focused on the "hot button" social issues -- well its pretty obvious the election of significance to them is the Republican Primary where they cull out moderates and libertarians overly attached to liberty. But now they are confronted with a maverick who seems to be foundering in the polls (McCain), a Republican whose "morality" may be in question as well as some of his social conservative credentials (Guiliani), and a Mormon who currently is singing their tune, but for a slight lapse necessary to get elected Governor of Massachusetts (Romney.)
Their quandary is not well hidden. When you have a political base which puts religion before law, and the Fundamentalists have been very clear they would basically use the Bible to interpret the Constitution and find the establishment clause to be nothing more than a very low speed bump -- well religion is actually important! The problem they now face is that their political operatives are standing behind pulpits and they have been declaring that Mormons are not Christians ever since Joseph Smith, Jr. disclosed the First Vision to his local ministers. Its a tough choice, 30% of Americans have said that they would not vote for a Mormon for President under any circumstances. Wonder how many of that 30% are Democrats? Not likely -- more likely it is the Christian right.
So will the Christian right stand by their political agenda, or cave into religious bigotry? Tough choice -- but its one they set themselves up to have to make. You live by using religious beliefs as a political weapon -- you die because of your political weapon. Life is not fair -- at least that is what the Christian right has been screaming in a very shrill voice for sometime now.
And when a Mormon is rejected as being unfit to be a President because of his religion, by his fellow Christians? How will that go down? Will it cause Mormondom to start taking a much wider view of the issues facing the country than what the pregnant women and gays are up to? Maybe, then again...probably not.
Mormons tend to be busy. They have their work, above average sized families, and Church callings that frequently take up most of their spare time. As a result they get their political awareness in sound bites and inferences drawn from clear Church stances on a very few political issues. Although Mormons are warned prior to the heavy onset of national political campaigns, not to ascribe endorsement of any candidate or party to the Church -- many would feel such an ascription would probably be of minimal value anyway, since most members have a radar lock on who they are going to support based on sound bites.
So how does that happen? Certain issues like abortion and gay marriage are routinely brought up by the Republicans. The Church's stance if read closely is not necessarily inconsistent with pro-Choice or at least responsible pro-Choice. I would suspect that there are only a minimal number of Mormons who are radically pro-Life. But, the Church, and rightly so, considers abortion to be a very, very grave decision -- and if it is a gratuitous abortion (where the pregnancy is not a result of incest or rape, necessary because the mother's life is in danger, or involves an extremely impaired embryo) then the woman may well be in serious jeopardy of her standing in the Church. So when abortion is mentioned, most Mormons are going to click on gratuitous abortions and make inferences about pro-Choice politicians which may or may not be correct. They may not have the time or wish to devote the time to figure out exactly where the politician stands.
Because of the centrality of the marriage covenant to Mormon beliefs, the Church feels compelled to speak out against Gay Marriage. With respect to Gay Marriage the gloves are more likely to be taken off and actual political activism encouraged. That does not, however, mean the Church is saying vote for this candidate or that candidate -- it is merely trying to denounce Gay Marriage. So when Gay Marriage comes up, most Mormons are going to take a peak at which party or candidate is advocating or fighting against Gay Marriage. Once that quick observation is made by the individual Mormon, they can then pull their head back into their ordered shell and move on to other matters in life. They may not feel they have the time to figure out what the other issues may be.
Outside of these "morality" issues, the Church tends to rarely get involved in politics -- it did oppose the ERA and it also opposed the MX Missile system since that would have directed all of the USSR's nuclear missiles at Mormondom.
The ecumenical outreach programs that were assigned to Dallin Oakes when he was called to the Quorum of the Twelve sought to reach out to the Protestant Christians and Christian Fundamentalists in particular. Whether that was wise or not is hard to say, I assume there was a good reason for doing so. On the other hand, the most vehement persecution of the Mormon Church has never come from the liberals or from the left, it has always come from the conservatives and from the right. Its like Mormons have taken "turn the other cheek" to a whole new level like, "here's the other cheek, top of my head, my back, my knees, etc." Out here in Vermont you hardly ever hear anti-Mormon attacks, back in Indiana the attacks from various fundamentalists and other Protestants was constant and vicious.
But now, the Christian right has a problem. For a number of years now they have been able to count on two regions as part of the power base: the South and the Rocky Mountain West. The South being represented by the Evangelicals and the Rocky Mountain West by the Mormons. They have certainly not been above using the Mormons as a political cudgel to bash and batter the liberals, and since the Christian right is focused on the "hot button" social issues -- well its pretty obvious the election of significance to them is the Republican Primary where they cull out moderates and libertarians overly attached to liberty. But now they are confronted with a maverick who seems to be foundering in the polls (McCain), a Republican whose "morality" may be in question as well as some of his social conservative credentials (Guiliani), and a Mormon who currently is singing their tune, but for a slight lapse necessary to get elected Governor of Massachusetts (Romney.)
Their quandary is not well hidden. When you have a political base which puts religion before law, and the Fundamentalists have been very clear they would basically use the Bible to interpret the Constitution and find the establishment clause to be nothing more than a very low speed bump -- well religion is actually important! The problem they now face is that their political operatives are standing behind pulpits and they have been declaring that Mormons are not Christians ever since Joseph Smith, Jr. disclosed the First Vision to his local ministers. Its a tough choice, 30% of Americans have said that they would not vote for a Mormon for President under any circumstances. Wonder how many of that 30% are Democrats? Not likely -- more likely it is the Christian right.
So will the Christian right stand by their political agenda, or cave into religious bigotry? Tough choice -- but its one they set themselves up to have to make. You live by using religious beliefs as a political weapon -- you die because of your political weapon. Life is not fair -- at least that is what the Christian right has been screaming in a very shrill voice for sometime now.
And when a Mormon is rejected as being unfit to be a President because of his religion, by his fellow Christians? How will that go down? Will it cause Mormondom to start taking a much wider view of the issues facing the country than what the pregnant women and gays are up to? Maybe, then again...probably not.
The Romney Irony
Mitt Romney is a nice guy, he is not my favored pick for the Presidency -- but he is a clean cut and honest guy. But, he faces what is probably an obstacle embedded in a political irony that will probably preclude his nomination and most certainly his election if nominated.
The political irony with which Romney is faced is simply this: given his recent pandering to the Christian right he is considered by most people outside the Christian right as clearly a Christian right candidate. On the other hand, because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints most people who are inside the Christian right do not consider him a Christian.
So the task that Romney faces is proving to the social conservatives that Mormons are Christians, and though Mormons are normally a group that comes in for special hatred from their bigoted core -- that Romney is their best candidate for their avowed intent to replace the Constitution with the Bible and legislate Evangelical lifestyles and beliefs for all. That in itself is a pretty tall order, when 30% of Americans are currently saying that they will not vote a Mormon under any circumstances -- and you have to believe that a large portion of the 30% are right-wing social conservatives in the Republican party.
The same poll showed that 40% of Americans had no idea what a Mormon was. This 40% is probably largely inhabited by the voters on the left side of the of American politics. Further, they are seeing a man who portrayed himself as pro-life and a member of that nearly extinct group known as moderate Republicans. He did that to get elected Governor in one of the most liberal States in the Union -- namely Massachussets. Now, however, that he is running for the Presidency, he is repudiating many of the things which he held himself up to represent in order to get elected Governor. So moderates and centrists are now beginning to consider him just another ranting social conservative.
So Romney is caught up in a very, very tough corner. McCain, has taken a somewhat similar approach -- his credibility with the American people was based on the fact that he was a Republican rebel and a political maverick. Which basically highlights his problem -- how do you get nominated by a party which you have built your reputation in rebelling from? And, the related problem of how do you woo your own party without destroying the reputation which makes you palatable to the conservative Democrat, moderate Republicans, and the independents. My guess is that you cannot walk that political tightrope and get elected President. But -- what are the Republican alternatives?
The political irony with which Romney is faced is simply this: given his recent pandering to the Christian right he is considered by most people outside the Christian right as clearly a Christian right candidate. On the other hand, because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints most people who are inside the Christian right do not consider him a Christian.
So the task that Romney faces is proving to the social conservatives that Mormons are Christians, and though Mormons are normally a group that comes in for special hatred from their bigoted core -- that Romney is their best candidate for their avowed intent to replace the Constitution with the Bible and legislate Evangelical lifestyles and beliefs for all. That in itself is a pretty tall order, when 30% of Americans are currently saying that they will not vote a Mormon under any circumstances -- and you have to believe that a large portion of the 30% are right-wing social conservatives in the Republican party.
The same poll showed that 40% of Americans had no idea what a Mormon was. This 40% is probably largely inhabited by the voters on the left side of the of American politics. Further, they are seeing a man who portrayed himself as pro-life and a member of that nearly extinct group known as moderate Republicans. He did that to get elected Governor in one of the most liberal States in the Union -- namely Massachussets. Now, however, that he is running for the Presidency, he is repudiating many of the things which he held himself up to represent in order to get elected Governor. So moderates and centrists are now beginning to consider him just another ranting social conservative.
So Romney is caught up in a very, very tough corner. McCain, has taken a somewhat similar approach -- his credibility with the American people was based on the fact that he was a Republican rebel and a political maverick. Which basically highlights his problem -- how do you get nominated by a party which you have built your reputation in rebelling from? And, the related problem of how do you woo your own party without destroying the reputation which makes you palatable to the conservative Democrat, moderate Republicans, and the independents. My guess is that you cannot walk that political tightrope and get elected President. But -- what are the Republican alternatives?
Family Values Conservative
Recently on a blog-site a person asked in a comment, what is a "family values conservative?" The question was sufficiently interesting to me that I felt it justified an article. Actually, the three-word label given up above is somewhat unusual. Usually its label is "family values," or "traditional family values." Its an odd phrase in any event where it is employed.
For example, you would expect that a party touting "family values" would place tremendous effort upon the protecting the relationship between parent and child. Yet, when the Republicans decided to go after Clinton with respect to Monica Lewinsky -- there were some truly bizarre things going on. This is not intended as a reference to the various "Christian right" members of Congress throwing stones in their glass houses. No this is a reference to what the "independent" prosecutor did when Monica Lewinsky went home to have a heart to heart talk with her mother. He subpoenaed her mother to try and find out what Monica said.
"Family values," however, has become a code-phrase that basically means: strict censorship of the entertainment industry, pro-life, pro-abstinence only sex education and birth control, intelligent design, negative view on public education funding, anti-gay, stereotyping of gender roles, economic individualism and abolishment of the barrier between religion and government. In other words, "Conservative Family Values" is a code word for Christian right wing politics. Its about the stick and not the carrot.
It is, to say the least, riddled with inconsistencies. First of all, censorship has to do with keeping other people from being entertained with lewd or racy material -- true family values start at home (in other words turn off the d--- TV!). Second, there are a lot of people who are opposed to abortion except in very special exceptions -- this isn't about whether you should or should not have an abortion, its not even about whether wealthy people should have an abortion -- this is about whether welfare mothers can have an abortion. Three, sorry folks abstinence only education does not work -- not that I don't agree that abstinence is the right thing, its just that teenagers in the backseat of a car or wherever have this unfortunate tendency to forget about abstinence. Four, intelligent design -- I have no clue why people believe that Darwinian Evolution is destructive to any family. Five Destroying public education is not going to make people more moral, its going to make people less educated and being less educated does not make you a better parent. Six, it would seem to me that "family values" would support committed relationships -- parents who stay together longer, what we should be doing is focusing on promiscuity, not gender orientation. Seventh, gender stereotyping -- if you didn't want both parents working outside the home, you should have supported economic conditions where they could afford a good standard of living with only one person working. Eighth, if you haven't figured it out yet -- unrestrained free market capitalism does not strengthen families. Ninth, do away with the establishment clause and then you try to live the American myth where you had a nice home, four kids, two cars and the wife kissed her husband goodbye as he left for work and she returned to do the laundry, housecleaning, cooking, and a trip to beauty parlor.For me -- this whole "family values" discussion is your basic bunk. It elicits smug comments from Bob Dole, when he isn't doing Viagra commercials, to make stupid statements like it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it only takes two parents! Oh clever Bob. No Bob, it does take a community to raise a child and we need to help communities to unite to get the job done. We don't do that by blaring that competition is the only way to get things done. We don't do that by alienating people and discriminating against people. We do that by making sure everyone receives enough pay to live with dignity and off the welfare system. We do that by investing in education. Its the carrot that works, not the stick
For example, you would expect that a party touting "family values" would place tremendous effort upon the protecting the relationship between parent and child. Yet, when the Republicans decided to go after Clinton with respect to Monica Lewinsky -- there were some truly bizarre things going on. This is not intended as a reference to the various "Christian right" members of Congress throwing stones in their glass houses. No this is a reference to what the "independent" prosecutor did when Monica Lewinsky went home to have a heart to heart talk with her mother. He subpoenaed her mother to try and find out what Monica said.
"Family values," however, has become a code-phrase that basically means: strict censorship of the entertainment industry, pro-life, pro-abstinence only sex education and birth control, intelligent design, negative view on public education funding, anti-gay, stereotyping of gender roles, economic individualism and abolishment of the barrier between religion and government. In other words, "Conservative Family Values" is a code word for Christian right wing politics. Its about the stick and not the carrot.
It is, to say the least, riddled with inconsistencies. First of all, censorship has to do with keeping other people from being entertained with lewd or racy material -- true family values start at home (in other words turn off the d--- TV!). Second, there are a lot of people who are opposed to abortion except in very special exceptions -- this isn't about whether you should or should not have an abortion, its not even about whether wealthy people should have an abortion -- this is about whether welfare mothers can have an abortion. Three, sorry folks abstinence only education does not work -- not that I don't agree that abstinence is the right thing, its just that teenagers in the backseat of a car or wherever have this unfortunate tendency to forget about abstinence. Four, intelligent design -- I have no clue why people believe that Darwinian Evolution is destructive to any family. Five Destroying public education is not going to make people more moral, its going to make people less educated and being less educated does not make you a better parent. Six, it would seem to me that "family values" would support committed relationships -- parents who stay together longer, what we should be doing is focusing on promiscuity, not gender orientation. Seventh, gender stereotyping -- if you didn't want both parents working outside the home, you should have supported economic conditions where they could afford a good standard of living with only one person working. Eighth, if you haven't figured it out yet -- unrestrained free market capitalism does not strengthen families. Ninth, do away with the establishment clause and then you try to live the American myth where you had a nice home, four kids, two cars and the wife kissed her husband goodbye as he left for work and she returned to do the laundry, housecleaning, cooking, and a trip to beauty parlor.For me -- this whole "family values" discussion is your basic bunk. It elicits smug comments from Bob Dole, when he isn't doing Viagra commercials, to make stupid statements like it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it only takes two parents! Oh clever Bob. No Bob, it does take a community to raise a child and we need to help communities to unite to get the job done. We don't do that by blaring that competition is the only way to get things done. We don't do that by alienating people and discriminating against people. We do that by making sure everyone receives enough pay to live with dignity and off the welfare system. We do that by investing in education. Its the carrot that works, not the stick
Fatherhood and Remembrance
Each generation seems to belittle the generation which follows. When they do this, they tend to be talking about other family's children or "kids these days..." followed by some negative comment on their work habits, ethics, child rearing or school work. In a country obsessed with labor saving gadgets, the grousing normally includes some comment to the effect that the rising generation has it easier than the one that went before... "well when I was in school..."
As a result you really have to question the credibility of the generation immediately preceding you as to their critique of your generation. Tom Brokaw may, or may not, have been correct in referring to the WWII generation as being the "Greatest." Sure they put America as number one with respect to just about everything: military might, economic clout, standard of living, health care etc. etc. Sure during this generation we have only been able to hold on to that first place in military might and economic clout (the second is quickly headed for shaky ground), but they were not called upon to fight a morally questionable war in a country few knew anything about (Viet Nam.) They also voted themselves the best retirement security this nation had ever seen. In addition, WWII had driven every other highly developed industrialized planet to their knees. Except for Pearl Harbor, America was basically unscathed at home. So business wise, you really had to do a lousy job not to succeed -- now you have to do one heck of a job to just survive.
Frequently, in the grousing by the WWII generation, you find negative comments about the parenting ability of the Viet Nam generation. But I believe there might be grounds to call them on that issue. I give you one simple anecdotal example. My children who are now mostly grown and through college or grad school, all participated in track and cross-country in high school. I followed my Father's example and attended nearly all of their meets at home or away. I also ran track and cross country. "When I was in high school and junior high..." hardly anyone showed up for our home or away track meets. Other than team members and coaching staff, the only other spectators were my parents and my dog -- and sometimes the dog didn't make it. When I watched my children participate, there were a huge number of parents at such meets. So how does that compute into bad parenting?
Sometimes they complain about drugs. That is one complaint that my generation has no real grounds to criticize their kids generation, and probably not the extramarital sex issue either. But I suspect our parents had some legitimate gripes on that point, except...have you ever watched General Eisenhower in any of the film clips during WWII? He is almost never without a cigarette in hand. I remember if you opened the door to the teacher's lounge at my high school, a huge cloud of billowing cigarette smoke would blossom out into the school. It also seems like that generation had something of a little alcohol problem as well.
Looking at my children and their friends, I just cannot help being impressed. They know how to do so much more than we did. So when it comes to being a father, I tend not to knock the Iraq war generation. But contrary to what I have said before, I have to nod in some respects to my Father having been an amazing person. He only graduated from high school, but he was one of the first in his home county to learn to and drive a motor vehicle. He could sell about anything to anyone. While he was not a strong advocate of organized religion and basically detested professional ministers, there was still some kind of spirituality about him that I cannot quite put into words.
While my father had most of the prejudices prevalent in the Great Lakes region at the time, when the local KKK started persecuting Catholics (because there weren't really any racial minorities to persecute), he helped try to shelter them from the storm. When Merchants got outraged at the Gypsies when they came around, he made friends with their King. He may not have been a big supporter of the United Way and other organized charities, but he quietly took care of neighbors in need. And, probably most important of all -- he provided, took care of, and encouraged his children in their activities. It didn't matter to him if we sat the bench at team sport competitions, he came anyway. When he thought an important extracurricular group was not getting sufficient attention from the school (4H, Cross-Country, etc.) -- well he made sure himself that they got rewarded for their efforts himself. If at a 4H or FFA auction it appeared to him that kids were being penalized at the auction and judging not because of the efforts they put in, but rather the quality of animal they could afford to start with -- well, let's just say there were a lot steers who commanded a higher price than the Grand Champions at the local county fair.
While he may not have been impressed with the hippie generation, or the anti-war demonstrations during Viet Nam, he understood that all wars were not equal and in that respect our generation got short changed. He also knew that we should not be sending my generation into harm's way because of some domino theory.
So while I may not be all that impressed with my Father's generation, I was and always will be impressed with my Father.
As a result you really have to question the credibility of the generation immediately preceding you as to their critique of your generation. Tom Brokaw may, or may not, have been correct in referring to the WWII generation as being the "Greatest." Sure they put America as number one with respect to just about everything: military might, economic clout, standard of living, health care etc. etc. Sure during this generation we have only been able to hold on to that first place in military might and economic clout (the second is quickly headed for shaky ground), but they were not called upon to fight a morally questionable war in a country few knew anything about (Viet Nam.) They also voted themselves the best retirement security this nation had ever seen. In addition, WWII had driven every other highly developed industrialized planet to their knees. Except for Pearl Harbor, America was basically unscathed at home. So business wise, you really had to do a lousy job not to succeed -- now you have to do one heck of a job to just survive.
Frequently, in the grousing by the WWII generation, you find negative comments about the parenting ability of the Viet Nam generation. But I believe there might be grounds to call them on that issue. I give you one simple anecdotal example. My children who are now mostly grown and through college or grad school, all participated in track and cross-country in high school. I followed my Father's example and attended nearly all of their meets at home or away. I also ran track and cross country. "When I was in high school and junior high..." hardly anyone showed up for our home or away track meets. Other than team members and coaching staff, the only other spectators were my parents and my dog -- and sometimes the dog didn't make it. When I watched my children participate, there were a huge number of parents at such meets. So how does that compute into bad parenting?
Sometimes they complain about drugs. That is one complaint that my generation has no real grounds to criticize their kids generation, and probably not the extramarital sex issue either. But I suspect our parents had some legitimate gripes on that point, except...have you ever watched General Eisenhower in any of the film clips during WWII? He is almost never without a cigarette in hand. I remember if you opened the door to the teacher's lounge at my high school, a huge cloud of billowing cigarette smoke would blossom out into the school. It also seems like that generation had something of a little alcohol problem as well.
Looking at my children and their friends, I just cannot help being impressed. They know how to do so much more than we did. So when it comes to being a father, I tend not to knock the Iraq war generation. But contrary to what I have said before, I have to nod in some respects to my Father having been an amazing person. He only graduated from high school, but he was one of the first in his home county to learn to and drive a motor vehicle. He could sell about anything to anyone. While he was not a strong advocate of organized religion and basically detested professional ministers, there was still some kind of spirituality about him that I cannot quite put into words.
While my father had most of the prejudices prevalent in the Great Lakes region at the time, when the local KKK started persecuting Catholics (because there weren't really any racial minorities to persecute), he helped try to shelter them from the storm. When Merchants got outraged at the Gypsies when they came around, he made friends with their King. He may not have been a big supporter of the United Way and other organized charities, but he quietly took care of neighbors in need. And, probably most important of all -- he provided, took care of, and encouraged his children in their activities. It didn't matter to him if we sat the bench at team sport competitions, he came anyway. When he thought an important extracurricular group was not getting sufficient attention from the school (4H, Cross-Country, etc.) -- well he made sure himself that they got rewarded for their efforts himself. If at a 4H or FFA auction it appeared to him that kids were being penalized at the auction and judging not because of the efforts they put in, but rather the quality of animal they could afford to start with -- well, let's just say there were a lot steers who commanded a higher price than the Grand Champions at the local county fair.
While he may not have been impressed with the hippie generation, or the anti-war demonstrations during Viet Nam, he understood that all wars were not equal and in that respect our generation got short changed. He also knew that we should not be sending my generation into harm's way because of some domino theory.
So while I may not be all that impressed with my Father's generation, I was and always will be impressed with my Father.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
