PunkIsrael

Contrast

Thinking about the last post, I found myself recalling political posts I'd done in the past, like this one in 2004, when I defended George W. Bush. At the time, we had a beat-up Saturn and lived in the city, and I clung to the Republican party because I believed so much in personal responsibility, in not being a victim. I told people we moved to the city because we chose to, not because we had to. I even compared Bush to Christ, which is something I repent of now.

I write because I think I'm right. When I wrote about Bush in 2004, I truly believed he was on trial for his conviction and strong, unapologetic action. I now believe that Bush is one of those men who, when faced with his own mistakes, simply repeats the same answer over again, only louder. I've known men like him, men who cannot bear to look directly at themselves for fear of what they'll see. But, as always, we elect a sinner, not a savior.

Working in the shelter, even though it was only for a few months, opened my eyes to the ways the system fails. But in my reading and observation of people (a fairly nonstop thing on both counts), I find that people also do desperately illogical things, and undermine themselves, and refuse the flotation devices thrown to them. Sin is folly that exists in human hearts, but sin is also cruelty and injustice that we do against each other. We are all in it; we are all complicit.

Political finger-pointing and polarizing is simply a way to shift responsibility to someone else.

Why I Fear Liberals and Am Suspicious of Conservatives

For the last couple of years, I've identified myself as politically moderate, which means that I wholeheartedly embrace neither liberalism nor conservatism. Naturally, politics is a polarizing force, and so to those on the far edges, being moderate seems wishy-washy, indecisive, impotent. I would rather say that moderation in political views can represent an unwillingness to substitute human action for the perogatives of God.

Political views, when well thought-out and not simply uncritically accepted, strike at the very core of what we believe about human beings and how they act in the world. As a Christian, in order to understand mankind, I first need to consider sin. And I believe that at their extreme ends, liberalism and conservatism get it wrong because of inadequate views of sin. Specifically, I believe that liberals tend to believe that people don't sin, and conservatives tend to believe that people aren't sinned against. 

What do I mean when I say that liberals tend to believe, on some level, that people don't sin? I mean that liberals take a fairly utopian view of social action, which necessarily relies on the idea that people mean well; that left to their own devices, people will tend to be just and merciful and kind. Therefore, social action tends to minimize personal responsibility and focus on removing barriers to personal potential. If good people band together, the ethos goes, we can conquer injustice and bring about peace on earth. But, as I heard in a sermon recently, this is like trying to go back into the garden of Eden, and skipping the cross. Social change has to be accompanied by suffering love.

When I say that conservatives tend to believe that people aren't sinned against, I mean that the conservative ethos of personal responsibility and government non-intervention in social issues misses the point another way. Conservatives, I believe, understand sin very well. They are as good as liberals at being morally outraged. But in this emphasis on individual responsibility, conservatives forget that people are sinned against--that homeless people aren't always homeless merely because of foolishness or laziness, but sometimes because of societal injustice. Occasionally, social reform is necessary, but not through grandstanding or sloganizing or political power grabs, but again, through suffering love. We have to be willing to intervene in the lives of those who are treated unjustly, and not merely seek to influence legislation.

So I call myself moderate for lack of a better idea. I believe that it is passive and retreatist to refuse to ever intervene in the political process. But I equally believe that the kingdom of God doesn't come from legislation and political power--not from the top--but organically, from the bottom, like a virus in the system that reprograms the entire thing.

Super Duty

This thing is ridiculous. 

I saw one the other day on my way home; it's the size of a small house.

I can't imagine anyone needing something this big unless they tow horse trailers or mobile homes on a daily basis.  Under "fuel economy" on the Ford website, it says "not applicable".

Not applicable?

The Carolina truck fixation really drives me nuts, especially since we're in the middle of an energy crisis.  The thinking seems to be that if you can afford to drive big trucks and SUVs to transport (usually) one person around, then the concept is self-justifying.  Never mind the fuel that gets wasted.  I remember one day right after the New Orleans flood, driving into a rural gas station that was asking people to limit their fuel purchase to ten bucks or less, and there were some people out there fueling up dune buggies.

The bigger the truck, the bigger the man, right boys?

Green, Appended: Moral Dilemmas

If you read my last post, you're probably not surprised that I've been thinking a lot about social and political issues lately.  I've began to suspect that my largely conservative (read: Republican) sensibilities haven't been examined enough.  To wit:

I still believe in

• personal responsibility
• less, rather than more, government intervention
• the church (ideally) outperforming the state in social action
• free enterprise
• democracy

However, I'm coming to believe

• free enterprise needs accountability, not license
• government needs more accountability, not idealism
• the Republican party no longer reflects my views, even in the moderate stance
• the church, sadly, needs to repent for not doing enough
• personal responsibility doesn't excuse us from corporate action

In the spirit of further thinking about these issues, I'm going to post a few moral dilemmas that I've been mulling over the past few days.  Feel free to solve them for me if you're able.

Moral Dilemma 1: The Problem of Ideals versus Reality
It is the presidential race, 20xx.  In broad strokes, the Republican Candidate promises moderate attention to environmental and social issues, but is unlikely to make it a priority because of big business interests.  The Democratic candidate promises heavy attention to environmental and social issues, but is likely to spend more time courting special interest groups.  Even so, you find him a better candidate than the Republican.  The Green Party candidate is most closely aligned with your views, but is basically unelectable.
Do you vote for your own peace of mind, or for what you think is realistic?  Do you vote for the Democrat, and cut your losses, or do you vote for the Green Party candidate?  Would this be a "waste" of your vote?

Moral Dilemma 2: The Problem of Consistency
While realizing that complete consistency is impossible, you want as much correlation between your ideals and your action as possible.  You value fairness, justice, health, and sustainability, for instance.  You decide to begin shopping at an all-organic supermarket.  However, the closest one is an hour away, which forces you to burn much more gasoline than you usually would.  So, by attempting to eat more sustainably, you add to the problem of pollution.  Or, to put it a different way, perhaps you value the ideal of re-using to avoid excess consumption.  The only car you can afford to buy outright is a gas guzzler (you've chosen to eliminate your consumer debt).  Does the fact that you are getting more use out of the raw materials for the automobile outweigh the environmental costs?

Moral Dilemma 3: The Problem of Responsibility
You decide, whenever possible, to research what you are buying and buy responsibly.  You do not want to support unjust or irresponsible practices.  Someone gives you a blender for Christmas, bought at Walmart, made in Mexico.  Do you return it?  You aren't able to research everything you buy.  The maze of corporate double-speak and PR spin makes it impossible to know what you are really supporting.  Are you culpable? 

Green

Watch The Corporation, then go ahead and read/listen to the rebuttals by economists, etc.  Try to reconcile yourself to the idea that in order for someone to succeed, someone else has to fail.  Have trouble sleeping.  Find this a very modern idea. 

Remember that you started a mutual fund with a big investment company.  Be uncomfortable not knowing what you're supporting, what you're jointly responsible for.  Read enough about socially responsible investing to know a good thing when you see it.  Do some research, post the links on your blog under "Green Links". 

Realize you don't know enough to make an extended argument.  Realize that you can't be consistent, that even the shirt you bought at a thrift store was probably made in Malaysia by someone making 30 cents an hour.  Feel like taking a GI shower when it dawns on you that you are part of the problem.  That dreaming isn't enough.  That working for IBM is not your goal.  That there is something better.

Start looking for it.

In Search of Particularity

A note to Democrats: your candidate lost.  Get over it. 

You'll get another chance in four years. 

Honestly, the amount of self-righteousness coming out of the Democratic party since the election really has become nauseating.  I mean, the first few days, you chalk it up to wound-licking and leave it alone.  But check this link out if you don't believe me: www.democrats.org.  Especially the self-congratulatory letters that let everyone know what dedicated martyrs they are.

Regarding the title: I think a lot of the problem with President Bush's image is his particularity.  Many people can't deal with the fact that he is unapologetically a particular man: white, upper-class, Southern, and Republican.  He doesn't attempt to shape-shift.  He is who he is.  You have to filter his politics through this grid if you want to understand the man.  I think he's an honest guy who truly believes what he is doing is right.  And I won't lie: I prefer that to candidates who lick their fingers and stick them into the political wind to see which way to lean today.

Particularity is what we all need a little more of.  Most of the clues we find in our daily lives lead in this direction.  I don't have a great car, but I have a particular car.  It's a beat-up red Saturn with duct tape on the driver's side window.  It doesn't define me, but it's particular to me. 

Incidentally, I think this is part of what postmoderns object to about Jesus.  We are mortified that this ancient Palestinian Jew would propose to be our Savior--the savior of a diverse group of Gen-Xers.  In our egocentricity, in our own particular hatred of particularity, we object to the idea that we could be defined by one Jewish carpenter...indeed, that our lives could pivot around our view of him.

In the words of one angry agnostic: "If the bible was meant for me, why wasn't it written in English?"

Simple: English hadn't been invented yet.  We're not as important as we think we are.