John McCain
“Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.
“Today, I was a candidate for the highest office in the country I love so much. And tonight, I remain her servant. That is blessing enough for anyone…
“I call on all Americans, as I have often in this campaign, to not despair of our present difficulties, but to believe, always, in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.”
Barack Obama
"It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.”
“I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand. What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.
"To those - to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.”
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The President's job, since 1788
"... in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
What a whirlwind of intellectual and emotional conflict this long, long election season has been.
Competing interests, philosophical strife, personal wants and needs, deepest hopes and fears, all have been brought to the surface in the race between the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket and Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket (or all those third party candidates for whom you can vote “on principle”).
“… with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Declaration of Independence
Inside the privacy of the voting booth/cubicle/dining room table, I suspect that most Americans will vote on their “lives” (meaning national security/strong defense/terrorism) and their fortunes (“who’s gonna get this economy humming again”). Our sacred honor is not as much a factor, except for, perhaps, evangelical Christians or the most principled among us. This factor makes today’s “moral” issues (abortion, traditional marriage, embryonic stem cell research) fringe issues. That may be why the major candidates gave so little attention to these matters.
Without confessing my own deep struggle between core theological and political views (mostly conservative) and personal identification with race and history (progressive-revisionist), I first had to come to peace with a decision (just make a decision!). I finally resolved the issue by voting my head and praying my heart. Weird and conflicted.
But what does the U.S. Constitution say? If you’re a “limited government” type like me, the Constitution will lead you to the conclusion that we are asking way more of our government than it and its President are empowered to provide. (A different bias will lead one to another conclusion.)
Article II of the Constitution (link to the National Archives ) outlines the job of the Executive branch of government, led by the President, and checked and balanced by the Legislative branch (Article I) and the Judicial branch (Article III). It’s tightly edited. I love that. It specifies what the President must do.
Section 1 outlines the “chusing” of the President, including all that jazz about the term length, Electors (“Electoral College”), citizenship, succession, compensation, and oath. (Pretty fascinating reading, and it proves why the Union is nowhere near a Constitutional crisis. Those founding fathers were sharp, and had contingencies all plotted out.)
Sections 2 and 3 of Article II include the meat of the presidential job description. Section 2 says we’re counting on our president to handle the military (as Commander-in-Chief), grant reprieves and pardons for unjust federal convictions, write treaties (which would cover international relations, including another ignored issue this campaign – immigration), and nominate ambassadors, officers, and most significantly, “Judges of the supreme Court.”
Section 3 outlines the President’s “bully pulpit” powers. He gets to convene both houses of Congress for a “State of the Union” address “from time to time.” He gets to recommend things to the Congress (shouldn’t we all), and he has the power to convene or adjourn both or either houses. He receives ambassadors (should that not have been in Section 2?). He enforces the laws, and he commissions officers.
That’s it. That’s all. That’s plenty. So why do candidates give us many and varied position papers on all manner of policy? How has the President’s cabinet grown to 15 departments (plus the VP, Chief of Staff, OMB, EPA and Trade Rep.)? And there are countless commissions, bureaus and regulatory bodies.
I started thinking about this article by listing the things that mattered most to me in the selection of good presidential material. My issues were: sanctity of life, strong defense (meaning demonstrated personal courage and “toughness,” commitment, and understanding of lethal force), grasp of international relations, leadership and persuasive ability (important for Congressional deal-making), staff and campaign management (the rigors of a national campaign are a solid test of such abilities), personal character, and legal philosophy (by the way, not automatically best handled by lawyers).
Way down the list are various policy positions and proposals on the economy, taxes, health care, the environment, education, and energy.
That’s when I went back to the Constitution. That’s what I usually end up doing, going back to those original, fabulous, creative, flexible, firm documents. Though flawed, they are what the National Archives call “The Charters of Freedom.”
Given what the Constitution outlines, I’m looking for less from government, not more. It will take a stout leader to scale back this monolith of bureaucracy we’ve created. It will take a deep and abiding faith in individuals, in order to allow us to chart our own course and provide for the weakest among us voluntarily. I don’t know how the next President or any President will get us where we need to go.
It’s time to pray.
Competing interests, philosophical strife, personal wants and needs, deepest hopes and fears, all have been brought to the surface in the race between the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket and Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket (or all those third party candidates for whom you can vote “on principle”).
“… with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Declaration of Independence
Inside the privacy of the voting booth/cubicle/dining room table, I suspect that most Americans will vote on their “lives” (meaning national security/strong defense/terrorism) and their fortunes (“who’s gonna get this economy humming again”). Our sacred honor is not as much a factor, except for, perhaps, evangelical Christians or the most principled among us. This factor makes today’s “moral” issues (abortion, traditional marriage, embryonic stem cell research) fringe issues. That may be why the major candidates gave so little attention to these matters.
Without confessing my own deep struggle between core theological and political views (mostly conservative) and personal identification with race and history (progressive-revisionist), I first had to come to peace with a decision (just make a decision!). I finally resolved the issue by voting my head and praying my heart. Weird and conflicted.
But what does the U.S. Constitution say? If you’re a “limited government” type like me, the Constitution will lead you to the conclusion that we are asking way more of our government than it and its President are empowered to provide. (A different bias will lead one to another conclusion.)
Article II of the Constitution (link to the National Archives ) outlines the job of the Executive branch of government, led by the President, and checked and balanced by the Legislative branch (Article I) and the Judicial branch (Article III). It’s tightly edited. I love that. It specifies what the President must do.
Section 1 outlines the “chusing” of the President, including all that jazz about the term length, Electors (“Electoral College”), citizenship, succession, compensation, and oath. (Pretty fascinating reading, and it proves why the Union is nowhere near a Constitutional crisis. Those founding fathers were sharp, and had contingencies all plotted out.)
Sections 2 and 3 of Article II include the meat of the presidential job description. Section 2 says we’re counting on our president to handle the military (as Commander-in-Chief), grant reprieves and pardons for unjust federal convictions, write treaties (which would cover international relations, including another ignored issue this campaign – immigration), and nominate ambassadors, officers, and most significantly, “Judges of the supreme Court.”
Section 3 outlines the President’s “bully pulpit” powers. He gets to convene both houses of Congress for a “State of the Union” address “from time to time.” He gets to recommend things to the Congress (shouldn’t we all), and he has the power to convene or adjourn both or either houses. He receives ambassadors (should that not have been in Section 2?). He enforces the laws, and he commissions officers.
That’s it. That’s all. That’s plenty. So why do candidates give us many and varied position papers on all manner of policy? How has the President’s cabinet grown to 15 departments (plus the VP, Chief of Staff, OMB, EPA and Trade Rep.)? And there are countless commissions, bureaus and regulatory bodies.
I started thinking about this article by listing the things that mattered most to me in the selection of good presidential material. My issues were: sanctity of life, strong defense (meaning demonstrated personal courage and “toughness,” commitment, and understanding of lethal force), grasp of international relations, leadership and persuasive ability (important for Congressional deal-making), staff and campaign management (the rigors of a national campaign are a solid test of such abilities), personal character, and legal philosophy (by the way, not automatically best handled by lawyers).
Way down the list are various policy positions and proposals on the economy, taxes, health care, the environment, education, and energy.
That’s when I went back to the Constitution. That’s what I usually end up doing, going back to those original, fabulous, creative, flexible, firm documents. Though flawed, they are what the National Archives call “The Charters of Freedom.”
Given what the Constitution outlines, I’m looking for less from government, not more. It will take a stout leader to scale back this monolith of bureaucracy we’ve created. It will take a deep and abiding faith in individuals, in order to allow us to chart our own course and provide for the weakest among us voluntarily. I don’t know how the next President or any President will get us where we need to go.
It’s time to pray.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Surviving disaster
(photo by Jay Janner, Austin American Statesman via AP)Among the most dramatic tales of survival from Hurricane Ike’s arrival in Galveston is the lion who took shelter in a church with some local residents.
No doubt, the living is stressful along the Texas Gulf Coast. But they are hearty souls, mostly. More than a century before Hurricane Ike, the 1900 “Galveston Hurricane” (before they had cute names) took 6,000 lives. It remains the worst weather disaster in U.S. history, and spurred the construction of the sea wall.
Ike was not so deadly, but still traumatic, leveling entire neighborhoods, and knocking out power to much of the nation’s fourth largest metro area-Houston-for weeks.
But they’re dealing with it. NPR reported that some locals resented the growing “nanny state” mentality of local government. Many are carpenters and know how to rebuild, and survive in the process. “We ate all the good steaks last night,” said restaurateur Tommy LaCroy.
My perspective gets righted by the current PBS “Nova” series “Disaster.” Earthquakes, genuine cataclysms like Mt. Vesuvius in the year 79, Peru’s 1970 earthquake, or the Indian Ocean tsunamis of Christmas 2004.
Glen Beck’s radio conversation on the outpouring of compassion for the Texas Gulf Coast (September 23, hour three) didn’t take very long at all. No celebrity fundraisers. No MTV specials. No national outpouring of grief and anger. Not much to talk about, except pick up trucks, chain saws and pup tents – people scraping together what’s left of their material lives, and deciding if their love of the Gulf Coast lifestyle is that strong after all.
If only Wall Street was as stout as the carpenters on Galveston. While the big money cats are asking for a handout, government officials who manage our (taxpayers) money, are determined to bail out the really high rollers.
We’ve grown too accustomed to help from on high. Help is more reliable closer to home. Proverbs 27:10 reminds us that “better is a friend nearby than a brother far away.”
I don’t begrudge folks who accept help from the Salvation Army or Red Cross. Not at all. With every disaster, Americans get to prove their generosity. But let’s be clear. My hope is in God, and the two hands he gave me, and the people that I can see.
Let’s roll up our sleeves and pitch in for each other. Quick, before the guy shows up and says, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Political marriages - for better or worse
Just for the record, a couple of quick thoughts on political marriages.
John Edwards’ late-coming admission of his affair shocks the political soul, again. (But nothing really compares to the former president’s dalliance.) It’s not just “boys will be boys.” Edwards was a big-time political leader who earned millions of votes in various national primary races. He was a major voice for class envy, class warfare even, and some people were listening.
Even though he talked it through with his family years ago, the public revelation opens the wounds afresh. And there’s still the open paternity question. (My goodness, that child deserves to know who her father is.)
No matter what the apologists say, the marriage vow still carries weight – and the breaking of that vow kills credibility with the public. Lying outright to gaggles of reporters at a time, well that can’t be good for one’s political future, can it?
John McCain, asked by pastor Rick Warren at Saturday’s Saddleback Civic Forum about his worst moral failure, said it was the failure of his first marriage. After “extramarital affairs,” he divorced, then remarried, and eventually regained good relationships with his first wife and their children.
Political marriages are unique and difficult for their own reasons: the unrelenting visibility, the pressure on the kids, all those parties. Maybe, like Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, some of these guys should retire “to spend more time with their families.”
All the more reason to “pray for those in authority.”
John Edwards’ late-coming admission of his affair shocks the political soul, again. (But nothing really compares to the former president’s dalliance.) It’s not just “boys will be boys.” Edwards was a big-time political leader who earned millions of votes in various national primary races. He was a major voice for class envy, class warfare even, and some people were listening.Even though he talked it through with his family years ago, the public revelation opens the wounds afresh. And there’s still the open paternity question. (My goodness, that child deserves to know who her father is.)
No matter what the apologists say, the marriage vow still carries weight – and the breaking of that vow kills credibility with the public. Lying outright to gaggles of reporters at a time, well that can’t be good for one’s political future, can it?
John McCain, asked by pastor Rick Warren at Saturday’s Saddleback Civic Forum about his worst moral failure, said it was the failure of his first marriage. After “extramarital affairs,” he divorced, then remarried, and eventually regained good relationships with his first wife and their children.Political marriages are unique and difficult for their own reasons: the unrelenting visibility, the pressure on the kids, all those parties. Maybe, like Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, some of these guys should retire “to spend more time with their families.”
All the more reason to “pray for those in authority.”
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Bernie Mac 1957-2008
Just a quick shout out to the McCullough family on the untimely passing of "Bernie Mac," a favorite of The Old School editor.
His Fox TV show was an oasis of common sense, playing the father figure for his sister's children while she was in rehab. Funny right where I live. He went mainstream with his role in the "Ocean's Eleven" franchise, and I loved "Mr. 3000."
He was an Original King of Comedy, a husband, father and grandfather. Gone too soon. Love ya man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
