It’s no secret on this blog that I’m a McCain supporter. I believe that he has an appropriate understanding of the benefits of public policy on behalf of the common good, and its limits as a tool to re-engineer society. He has personally sacrificed for the United States, is demonstrably competent, and knows how to work with those who see things differently to accomplish important goals. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I think Sen. McCain is right for the challenges of the presidency – domestic and international – and I will vote for him. But I’m not his disciple.
Perhaps that is why I’m struggling so much as I watch Sen. Obama’s approach to attaining elected office. Much of the time, it’s unclear to me whether he’s running for president or messiah. When I listen to Barack Obama speak, I hear a sermon. Healthcare benefits and entitlement checks will flow like milk and honey. The lion and the lamb will lie down together and we’ll be a people of peace, respected around the world. We’ll power our land with earth, wind, and sun. We’ll all pay less and get more (well, most of us). We’ll all come together in unity, and he will lead us.
I find this rhetoric deeply unsettling. It is working (well) in ways that go way beyond political differences and move into the realm of faith. I clearly recognize that some Obama supporters are thoughtful people who weigh issues and prefer his approach (including some of my fellow bloggers with whom I heartily disagree but nonetheless respect and love). But, if he wins the election, it will be because he has deeply stirred the religious passions of a staggering number people who view him not as a politician, but as a savior. For a nation that has clung so tenaciously to the concept that church and state are separate, we seem to be teetering on the edge of a remarkable remake of state into a form of church, with Sen. Obama as its charismatic leader.
Authentic church is built on authentic community. Its members come together in a common commitment to the gospel, and seek to serve their Lord and one another in love. Christianity calls for death to self in favor of following Jesus, with the sure knowledge that it will require sacrifice. Service is expected of everyone, and giving flows from redeemed hearts. Although faith in Jesus affords believers tastes of the fruits of redemption in the here and now, the fullness of his promises is reserved for the age to come.
As envisioned by Obama, however, the church of state offers benefits without sacrifice. There is no personal repentance, no call to service. The prayer of the church of state is “what’s in it for me?” Tax “cuts” for just about everyone, including the great numbers who pay no taxes. The so-called “rich” – the new unclean out group if ever there was one – are the appointed scapegoats. Omitted from the narrative is that they already pay most of the taxes. The top five percent of taxpayers (those making adjusted gross income of $154,000 and up) pay sixty percent of the total federal tax dollars collected from individuals. The group in the next five percent pays an additional eleven percent of the total. By contrast, the bottom fifty percent – those earning $32,000 or less – pay only three percent of the total.
It’s worth noting that the senator is not setting his proposed requirements for massive additional revenue (because like it or not, someone has to pay for all this) as a challenge before redeemed hearts. Rather, his plan is to simply take more from those who have it because he wants it for his purposes. It matters not that they may have gotten it through hard work, personal sacrifice, and careful planning, and that they may have their own plans. It also matters not that even if he takes it all, it will never be enough. In the church of state, the gospel call to give freely is replaced with a legal mandate to take, and the gospel call to sacrifice is replaced with a secular decree of entitlement.
He also brings of promises peace, unity, and green. But the gospel call in all these areas presupposes life-giving unity with Christ. Part of the Christian hope is that as these benefits well up in the hearts of believers in community, they will spill over into our spheres of influence, and move us towards provisional acts of redemption in creation.
But in the church of state, Christ is not the center of these promises, Sen. Obama is. He is expected to raise our international stature by pitting talk against action as if they are somehow mutually exclusive. He is portrayed as the great red and blue unifier, as if our polarized society will somehow disappear with his Robin Hood-like redistribution of the wealth. He is also the great green-earther, as if solar, wind, and geothermal power are simply waiting to be harnessed for our clean and economical use at his say-so.
All the while, he is attracting impressive numbers of acolytes. I recently asked an Obama follower why he was so enthusiastic. He replied that Obama makes him feel calm. He also told me that he didn’t mind paying yet more in taxes – he felt that it was somehow a way for him to give back. When I pointed out that he could not only give back on his own, but direct it to his causes, he shrugged. Michael Smerconish, a popular conservative talk radio host, recently declared his support for Sen. Obama. Amid a string of surprisingly vague reasons for his choice, he indicated that Sen. Obama, if victorious, will give us hope. In support of that, here’s what he said: “Wednesday morning will come and an Obama presidency holds the greatest chance for unifying us here at home and restoring our prestige around the globe.”
Am I the only one bothered by this? I hear these things, and the category they trigger isn’t politics, it’s religion.
Why does Sen. Obama engender such hope among so many? Could it be that even though rampant secularism has taken hold in the United States, it cannot quash the human need to worship? Could it be that although Christian faith is on the wane, religious impulses are alive and well and still seeking haven in a gospel, albeit a secular one that requires nothing from them? For, there is no “ask not what your country can do for you” here, there is only follow me and I will give you _____. The problem is that – at least for now – the United States of America is not the church, and Sen. Obama is not the messiah.
October 27, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Re abortion, it is vital to realize that our current abortion laws are more lax than anywhere in Europe. Effectively, included in the “health” exception permitting 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions of viable babies is a psychological exception that includes a desire to have an abortion. In other words, the desire for an abortion is all that needs to be shown at any stage of the pregnancy.
It is important to realize that even this status quo, as maximal as it seems, would be extended under a President Obama. The issue is not only the Freedom of Choice Act, which is radical in its totalizing agenda. Frankly, I would be surprised if it passed Congress, even with substantial Democratic majorities in both houses. Of course, there maybe substantial pressure placed on Democrats who resist to pass the legislation.
Regardless, all of the tenets of the Freedom of Choice Act can be brought to fruition by another means – the Federal Judiciary. In my home state of New Jersey, the State Supreme Court declared a law requiring parental notification (not consent) for minors seeking an abortion to be unconstitutional under the New Jersey Constitution. Under an Obama Presidency, such a view will permeate the Federal Courts through 4 to 8 years of appointments.
Of even greater concern is the anticipated pressure that physicians are likely to come under. There is a strong likelihood that doctor’s consciences concerning abortion will not be respected, but that they will be compelled to either perform abortions or to refer to someone who will. Under a President Obama, the pro-choice movements desire for total victory is within reach.
I realize why Obama is attractive to so many. The prospect of an African-American President, given our nation’s history, is compelling. Furthermore, in terms of demeanor and articulation, if those were my views he were expressing, I too would be enthusiastic. But, in terms of actual policy and positions, they are not my views. And I think there are many others who might want to rethink whether President Obama would bring about change they actually believe in.
October 27, 2008 at 10:15 pm
TM,
Thanks for this. In many respects, I don’t think what we’re seeing is all that surprising in that it seems to me that Democratic party/the Left effectively serves as a religion, especially for its staunchest adherents. Now they have someone who so perfectly articulates and embodies all to which they aspire.
Now someone may say that the right/conservatism also serves as a substitute religion/false ideology. Granted, this maybe the case with respect to, for example, a naive view of human nature that causes many to assume that a free market of its own power will somehow bring about just and moral outcomes.
However, the vast distinction between right and left is that the left’s most basic impulse is the utilization of state power to bring to fruition their vision of a good society. If it is good, the state must advance it; if it is bad, it must be outlawed. Hence, legislation regulating “hate speech” as a prime example.
The right, on the other hand, while no more virtuous (terribly flawed human beings on both sides who seek to acrew and maintain power and wealth), at least leaves room for the church, family, civic and private institutions, etc.
Darryl Hart, I’m a one kingdom person who subscribes to a limited view of government. It seems you take the position that it’s either two kingdoms or “Christian America.” Any thoughts.
October 27, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Zrim, welcome to Conn-versation. You quoted one paragraph in my developing argument, but left out the next. My point here is not that these pursuits are necessarily out of bounds for government, but that Obama is offering them as if they are his to bestow his way. Hidden in his rhetoric is that international relations are talk or fight as mutual exclusives; that seizing from the “rich” (those who already pick up the lion’s share of the tab for everyone) and redistributing wealth will somehow unify us instead of sparking class warfare; and that reducing demand for foreign petroleum without nuclear power or increased domestic drilling is as simple as Jesus commanding the winds and the waves to obey him. His projection that these things are available because he decrees them is a break from reality that – to borrow your words – perhaps ought to merit a straight jacket, but I’ll settle for vote “no” at this point.
“Give me a fish now” sounds so noble, and it’s so easy to malign those who oppose it as selfish pigs. But, that’s where I and my fellow conservatives, many of whom are Christians, radically disagree. The key question: how is all this going to be funded? Answer: there’s not enough money in this or the next two generations to pay for it all. And so, by pushing the US economy past “the tax tipping point” (that place where fifty percent or more of the people in a society are net takers of government cash and benefits rather than net payers in), the resulting system eventually self-destructs. In order to keep up the flow, which the self-interested majority who benefit will favor, tax rates will have to get higher on people in lower brackets until such time as unemployment skyrockets, deficits soar yet higher, and super inflation kicks in as the government printing presses run to try to keep up. See Adam Lerrick’s excellent essay in last Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal for more on this: (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28813,filter.all/pub_detail.asp)
I don’t think the way you brought abortion into the discussion fits if you give my argument its full treatment. For the record, I’m solidly pro-life, although whether or not the continued chip-away at Roe v. Wade is the best way to shape public policy to that end would make an interesting future Conn-versation.
Wylie, you said it well.
TM
October 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comments!
Robert says: “I was trying to say to Mom and to others here, that viewing Sen. McCain as ‘right for the [international] challenges of the presidency’ is naive because the international community doesn’t hold him capable of constructive leadership”
I just do not believe that. They prefer Obama, true but I think they would work with McCain, seeing him as an improvement over Bush. Whether or not his leadership would be contructive is up for debate. From looking at Obama’s rigid defence of old-style, populist Democratic dogma vis-a-vis international trade I can’t see his leadership being that constructive. His record in decision making international relations is poor too. Since becoming a Senator, the one vote that really mattered for him (the Surge) he got spectacularly wrong – as even he seems himself to be tacitly agreeing to now. If he had been President the US would now be at home defeated with Al Qaeda crowing how it has defeated the infidel, a cataclysmic event.
Essentially, I just do not put much weight on the views of the Western European Political classes. The question I ask is *why* do they want Obama? Have they examined the various policies? Have they considered the different culture that is the US? Or are they just looking for the Anti-Bush out of some irrational, knee jerk Bush hatred? They seem quite content to sit sniping the sidelines and when a foreign land(the US) votes differently to how our elites would prefer they dismiss them as ignorant, narrow-minded racists or malevolent, imperialistic conspirators. They have next to no understanding of the American mindset, unless “American” means Los Angeles or New York.
Christians in the US, need to ask which candidate fits their ethics and political beliefs best. If you can justify voting for someone as radically pro-abortion as Obama, and prefer his other policies then so be it. If I were an American I would vote for someone whose first act when he becomes President is not going to be signing the Freedom of Choice Act, has shown himself to be able to work across political boundaries and has shown the nerve to challenge his own party’s dogma.
October 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“He [Obama] also brings of promises peace, unity, and green. But the gospel call in all these areas presupposes life-giving unity with Christ. Part of the Christian hope is that as these benefits well up in the hearts of believers in community, they will spill over into our spheres of influence, and move us towards provisional acts of redemption in creation.”
So, the gospel will fix what politics temporally aims for?
I never understand this line of thinking. Why can’t folks just say they take exceptions (great, small, I don’t care) to the way a certain man intends to govern instead of suggesting that the gospel will yield what it was never intended to yield? I mean, there are messiah complexes and then there are Messiah complexes. If Obama is as guilty as this argument suggests, don’t you think he needs a straight jacket instead of a no-vote? I seem to recall something about ladies protesting too much.
I also see the abortion issue is front and center. But, let me ask the ostensible conservative if the unborn care more about “goodwill welling up in the hearts of believers and redeeming creation” so that the conditions that precipitate their situation in the first place go away or their own lives? I mean, seriously, do feti really have time for that bit of starry-eyed hope? Taken in context, it always seems to me that mainstream natalists have as much in common with their utopian and progressivist nemeses. But, just like the poor likely would opt for the “give me a fish now” option, the unborn would probably prefer to make it to term.
October 26, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Mom: Thanks. I wonder if Harvie wrote much about the abortion debates.
As for social justice, I agree that the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan was likely not social tax policy. Taxes may have their place, as well as certain kinds of welfare, but it’s hard to imagine legislation accomplishing what Christ has in mind in the Sermon on the Mount.
Robert: I understand you’re offering an international perspective. And that is what troubles me. As much as I appreciate my European heritage and believe the U.S. is an outpost of the West, Europe itself these days does not look like a model of social stability. And please don’t discount that Americans have a long tradition of wanting to avoid foreign entanglements. Funny how two European wars of global proportions caused us to forget that tradition.
October 26, 2008 at 5:22 pm
All: guys, I”ve been barging in here and want to let you know I have enjoyed the exchange but feel that for now I’d probably better sit back for a while and read your comments. Sorry for the typos in the comment above. Allow me just two final arguments.
Mom writes: ‘The bigger question is what should the church be doing to challenge this misplaced devotion?’
This good question has, in my opinion, a simple answer: the church should be pointing people to Christ and should be training the Christians that come to Church how to be ’solid food’ Christians. That’s it. The Church should most definitely not engage in political positioning. When did Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, ever direct us to take sides in a political debate?
The Church seems far too much concerned about issues such as abortion, gay marriage etc., and while I consider it right and just for the Church to teach the word of God on these issues to their congregations, I think it produces nothing but contempt and animosity when the Church tries to influence the political agenda through criticism and commentary. If Christians want to change the direction of government (which I think is very laudable), they should get themselves elected.
Mom also writes: ‘My disagreement with them on that has more to do with the difference between sacrificial giving from a heart changed by Christ and coercive taxation to further redistribute wealth.’
This is strange. I cannot see how the recipients of social justice should care one way or the other about whether the help they receive was triggered by a change of heart or by taxation. The objective of social justice, in case we forget, is not to make the giver or payer feel good, it is to alleviate the suffering of those in need.
Moreover, ’sacrificial giving from a heart changed by Christ’ is not going to make much of a dent because there is so precious little of it. And it is not the aim of Christ’s teachings. The Bible clearly teaches that giving to the poor is a command. It is a command for every Jew and every believer, just as it is a command for every Muslim and they seem to be doing a much better job of it.
Justice for the poor is not about earning righteousness for the rich. Justice for the poor is a General Mankind Command (on a similar level as Do Not Murder) and the command is just as binding for a believer as it is for an unbeliever: the command is not tied to being a follower of Christ. The only thing we can learn from the Bible in this respect is that one cannot be a true follower of Christ and not care about the poor or the widow or the orphan.
Christians ought to be very careful not to change this around by claiming that the Bible teaches that justice for the poor is only valid if effectuated by a born again Christian in the Reformed Tradition. Shudder the thought!
There is a parable Jesus taught about the good Samaritan. Jesus contrasted the Samaritan with a Jewish priest and then illustrated how the Samaritan (the people Jesus had not come to save) and not the Jew was the true good neighbour. So forget theology and ideology about justice for the poor only being true justice if effectuated by a Christian; it is rather the opposite, one is only a true Christian if one practices justice for the poor and needy.
I truly wish all of you God’s wisdom when you cast your vote for your next president. May God bless him and may God bless the United States of America.
Robert
October 26, 2008 at 3:42 pm
TM: ‘the kinds of expectations properly directed to Jesus are now falling on Obama in disturbing numbers.’
I don’t think so. People are looking for a leader to give them hope for the future and to lead them out of the mess this world is sinking in. It it therefore quite proper that they would look for a messiah; it is exactly what the Jewish people were looking for when they initiallly rallied behind Jesus, that is, when they still regarded Jesus as a political figure.
Howeber, the messiahnization of Sen. Obama has, correct me if I’m wrong, nothing to do with forgiveness of sins. Looking to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and secruing eternal life, those are the ‘kinds of expectations properly directed to Jesus’ and I fail to see how these are falling on Sen. Obama.
‘The generalization of the word that you try to do here doesn’t hold up in context.’
Why not? In the past the word ‘messiah’ has been applied to Adolf Hitler. He was a person who was regarded as being able to lead a nation out of problems. By which I do not, of course, wish to make any comparison between the German leader and the Senator, but I dowant to say that the term messiah is very much applicable to a charismatic political leader.
Of course I understand the very serious problems when Sen. Obama would be considered a messiah in the Christian sense. But I’m not doing that and I don’t see it happening.
Messiah is not a Christian word or concept; it is an old Hebrew word/concept that has been applied to Jesus. The term messiah is not exclusive to Jesus the Son of God.
‘..you can step each point you make back into an unfulfilled expectation. I don’t expect people to steal my identity. I don’t expect people to murder. And so on.’
Well, then our expectations are different. I do expect people to murder and kill and steal and kidnap. It’s the outcome of sin. It’s what the Bible teaches me is the state of mankind. Expecting people not to steal, murder, etc. is Humanism; the opposite of Christianity.
Robert
October 26, 2008 at 2:31 pm
—TM: believe it or not, I find you much more plausible when you opine about finance and politics than about theology. That’s meant to be a compliment.—
Darryl, I’m vaklempt! Common ground at last!
—But I do have a question: do you think Harvie Conn would vote for McCain?—
Interestingly, I was musing about this same question at various points this week. I suppose it would have depended upon where pro-life fell on his list of priorities. If it was at the top, he’d have (I’m guessing reluctantly) supported McCain. Many with high social justice concerns feel that Obama is their man. My disagreement with them on that has more to do with the difference between sacrificial giving from a heart changed by Christ and coercive taxation to further redistribute wealth (remember, the top 10% already pick up 71% of the tab here). I think monetary social justice is best addressed on the supply side from the former, and the latter simply advances a false gospel. If it’s more centered in concerns about race and gender, this race forces us to choose, and the Republican ticket passes the test.
Robert, regarding McCain’s abilities as an effective international leader, you picked up on a point that was secondary to the main thrust of the post, and that’s fine. It wasn’t where I was intending to head, but it did draw in some interesting debate. That’s what happens on these threads.
However, your etymologies are another story. They would merit a red pen slash and comment if this were a theological paper. You simply cannot make those kinds of leaps based on word origins, and especially not outrageous false ones (McCain/Cain). Vern Poythress drills this point into every Westminster student who passes through his hermeneutics class – just about everyone.
As for messiah, you’re correct that it is drawn from the Hebrew and means “anointed one.” In Greek, the same word is “Christ.” North and I both sense that the kinds of expectations properly directed to Jesus are now falling on Obama in disturbing numbers. The generalization of the word that you try to do here doesn’t hold up in context. No one has called John McCain “messiah.” The bigger question is what should the church be doing to challenge this misplaced devotion?
As for your final comment, you can step each point you make back into an unfulfilled expectation. I don’t expect people to steal my identity. I don’t expect people to murder. And so on.
TM
October 26, 2008 at 10:37 am
As to Mom’s theological comments: the name McCain resembles the name Cain (a man who’s slain another man) whereas the name Barack is Hebrew for blessing.
Messiah means ‘anointed one’. Messiah is a title, not a name, and has the meaning of a leader who saves a particular group from trouble.
In the Bible (1 Peter 2) we learn that we should subject ourselves to those in governement because they have been sent by God. There is nothing odd about seeing Obama as a messiah (to deliver the people from injustice or ruthless capitalism). Neither would it be odd to regard McCain as a messiah (to deliver them from terror).
Mom’s entire last comment only makes sense if people had started shouting the name of Jesus (Yeshua, or God Saves). Jesus is the Messiah sent from God; there are plenty of other messiahs; and if they are in government they are also appointed, and if someone brings justice to the poor he or she is more worthy of the title messiah than someone who ensures the rich stay rich.
‘He would do well to remember that unfulfilled expectations are the greatest cause of anger on the planet’.
But surely, are not hypocrisy, poverty, injustice, identity theft, conspiracies, split tongues, murder, Satan; are not all these much greater causes of anger on the planet than unfulfilled expectations?
Robert
Robert
October 26, 2008 at 10:19 am
Darryl writes: ‘ don’t see how any of these argue for Obama..’
Well, neither do I. The point is, I am not arguing for Sen. Obama. Is it so hard for you guys to engage is something like analysis? Mom wrote: ‘I think Sen. McCain is right for the challenges of the presidency – domestic and international’. I have consistenly focussed on this issue: why I think that many Europeans (the ‘international’ bit in Mom’s statement, as seen from a USA vantage point) do not regard Sen. McCain as right for the challenges of presidency.
If Thomas wants to talk about the role of the military, fine, but that would be another discussion. If you, Darryl, want to talk about whether Obama is fit for office, fine too, but again, it would be a different topic.
Whether US citizens want McCain or Obama is your choice. I am merely pointing out to you, the decision makers, that the assumption as Mom expressed is not neccesarily correct from the international point of view.
It is for you to decide whether my observations are relevant for making up your mind. I would think I have formulated enough arguments in case you want to debate them. For instance, I have argued how the claim ‘Obama has no experience’ is irrelevant in view of climate change, food shortages, financial crises. In response, you merely repeat ‘Obama has no experience’.
I have really tried to offer you a European take on the issue of the credibility of Sen. McCain in the international arena. That’s all.
Robert
October 26, 2008 at 9:18 am
TM: believe it or not, I find you much more plausible when you opine about finance and politics than about theology. That’s meant to be a compliment.
But I do have a question: do you think Harvie Conn would vote for McCain? I have my doubts. I read his arguments about the poor and the oppressed as having more in common with Wallis and Campolo, who are supporting Obama (I believe). Not to say that this site requires any orthodoxy (WCF or HC) for participation, your perspective does appear to be out of synch with others I’ve seen on what some might call “social justice.” And if a critic of Enns had come out here against Obama and for McCain. . . well, I’m sure you can imagine the response.
October 26, 2008 at 9:11 am
Robert:
In #9 you wrote:
“1) whatever experience Sen. McCain has that Sen. Obama does not have is irrelevant with respect to financial systems falling down and climate change challenges and global food shortages.
“2) The choice for Mrs Palin is the choice of a man who seemingly cannot think beyond next week.
“3) McCain refuses to set a firm date for pulling out of Iraq.
“4) McCain is not inspiring. He has no charisma. He does not lead, so people do not know whom to follow. He doesn’t say which way to go, he only criticises the direction someone else has chosen.
“5) Sen. McCain is not trusted to be capable of changing some very unhealthy but powerful forces within the Republican Party.
“6) Sen. McCain is too old. Personally I think it was a blunder of the Republican Party to support his nomination or even to let him run on their behalf.”
I don’t see how any of these argue for Obama, except for charisma and youth — which characteristics were partly at issue in TM’s original post. Obama has no experience, his choice of a running mate inspired no confidence (can you imagine Biden only one crazy assassin’s decision away from the Oval Office?), Obama hasn’t set a date for withdrawal from Iraq, and as a junior senator from Illinois I hardly see him taking on entrenched Democratic interests.
None of this argues for McCain. It’s simply a question of applying the same standard to each candidate. Because of Obama’s annointed status (and because of eight years of frustrations with Bush — can anyone remember dangling chads?), he does not receive the same scrutiny that McCain does (has anyone inquired about the expense of Biden’s “hair system”?).
October 25, 2008 at 10:31 pm
A friend called to my attention an essay called “Messiah Deficit Disorder” which Oliver North posted to the web yesterday. He wondered if North had read Conn-versation. Here’s an exerpt:
“During Wednesday afternoon’s rush hour, I was making my way home on the Dulles Greenway, when a phalanx of police motorcycles and cruisers stopped all traffic and ordered us to pull our vehicles off the highway and onto the shoulders. Over a loudspeaker, we were told to stay put until the Obama campaign convoy passed. They were on their way to a rally in Leesburg, Va.
Instantly, hundreds of people were out of their cars. Directly in front of me, a group of supporters — evident by their bumper stickers — jumped out with cameras, cell phones and banners. They began chanting: “The messiah! He’s coming! Obama is coming!” The shouting only intensified as the candidate and his entourage — motorcycles, police cars, black Secret Service Chevy Suburbans, and buses — roared past us.
What I found so disturbing was seeing so many of my countrymen who apparently think — or believe or hope — that the next president of the United States will save us from ourselves. Sen. Obama has said we cannot “wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” He would do well to remember that unfulfilled expectations are the greatest cause of anger on the planet. That’s true whether it is between husbands and wives, students and teachers, employers and employees or leaders and the led. He also might recall that humility is a virtue that has distinguished our greatest leaders.
What all this means to the future of this republic, I don’t know. I’m a military historian, not a prophet. But I do know the first name of the Messiah. It’s not Mike. And it isn’t Barack, either.”
For the full text, please go to:
http://townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2008/10/24/messiah_deficit_disorder?page=full&comments=true
TM
October 25, 2008 at 6:16 am
Thomas, I understand your blood boiling when being confronted with European pascifism. Mine often boils too. The reason I have such difficulty with one of my sisters is because she married a Mennonite and I simply cannot have nice social meetings with them. Also, I made it plain that many, myself up front, are grateful for the decisive role of the US Military in ending WWII. You also kept Berlin alive with the Marshall plan, and the reason talks about the future destination of Tempelhof Airport in Berlin was such a contentious issue recently was because so many people in Berlin wanted to keep the airport as memorial to your help. Finally, as I said, many Europeans can well live with the fact that the war in Iraq was started. You say it was your sweat, your toil and your money that ended the cold war. Yes sir, and I salute you for that.
But these are not the issues why many Europeans are opposed to Sen. McCain. The issue is this found here, in your statement ‘American leaders (or would be American leaders) who speak and act with forthright moral clarity…’.
This, Thomas, is what Europe refuses to believe after having seen how George W. deals with Arabia and how he leans to a specific fraction of the Republican Party. You will need the most powerful torchlight to find a single European who believes that your present CinC is acting with fortright moral clarity. And the problem is, McCain has not done enough to distance himself from the sphere of influence that surrounds Bush. You may consider that he has made it plain that he distances himself from the Bush family or the Bush Administration, but many over here are not convinced that Sen. McCain has distanced himself from, or has any real strength to oppose, the powerful lobby’s that determine so much of American politics.
If Europe would be at war, only a few from the general public would support Sen. Obama. About government leaders I am not so sure, because often times it seems as if European leaders are not even willing to defend themselves when under attack. They have a penchant for endless talk and no action. As Wylie said and as I agree, do not take to many lessons from Europeans.
But, Thomas, there is a reality here: this world is full of hypocrisy and greed and atheist scientists and false teachers. Mom wrote that she considered Sen. McCain ‘right for the challenges of the presidency – domestic and international’ and I have tried to argue that this is not necessarily the case as far as Europe is concerned. I am not judging Sen. McCain as a person and neither is it up to me to judge whether he would be a good president for the USA. My point is this, and I thought I had made that clear but I’m sorry if I haven’t: in order to be effective on the conference table, one needs to have the respect of the other parties. I do not think that Europe respects Sen. McCain enough to allow him to be effective. And I have tried to point out why.
I am not blaming you guys for your military. On the contrary, I’m very grateful for you having it. But why not use it effectively? Why is this powerful military unable to wipe out 2500 Taliban warriors? Why cannot this powerful military end the chaos in Iraq? Well, I don’t know all the answers, but I have a strong suspicion that it is because the military is not allowed to act efficiently because there are other forces within the government, the forces who do not act with fortright moral clarity, and these forces seem opposed to letting the military do an efficient job.
If Sen. McCain could deal with those forces, he could order the military to wipe out the Taliban and to end the mess in Iraq. But it would be at the cost of collateral damage and Sen. McCain is unable to ’sell’ this damage. The present world order is not about the military (really, Thomas, I sometimes wish it was). The present world order is about hypocrisy and greed.
I don’t doubt that Sen. McCain can command. He just seems unable to lead in the eyes of many people living in Europe where governments have abolished granting the military the right to go in, strike, finish, and leave.
So boil an egg and allow your blood to cool down
October 24, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Robert,
You state:
When 9/11 happened, both men were Senators.”
Incorrect. That is, unless you mean in Obama’s case, an Illinois state senator. Obama did not become a U.S. senator until January 2005.
You ask:
“In what way would McCain have more experience bearing upon the role of Commander in Chief when dealing with the threat of terror? Because he was wounded in the war in Vietnam? Because he has first hand experience of the sound of cannon?”
Well, yes and more. John McCain was educated at the U.S. Naval Academy and then retired from the Navy as a Captain after more than 20 years of service, in addition to being the son and grandson of four star Navy admirals. His wisdom in military matters is probably best illustrated by his support, at great risk to his candidacy and against a fair amount of public opinion, to the surge strategy, which has now allowed us to talk about “victory” in Iraq. But that’s not all. Way back during Reagan’s presidency, McCain opposed putting Marines into Beirut because he was concerned that they would not be secure. He opposed his hero, President Reagan, and unfortunately McCain was right and 241 of our servicemen were killed.
Candidly, but speaking only for myself of course, few things make my blood boil more than Europeans always and forever advocating appeasement, whether the subject is Nazism, Soviet Communism, or, now, Islamofascism, and then cloaking said appeasement in the guise of opposing American leaders (or would be American leaders) who speak and act with forthright moral clarity. Indeed, as a former American soldier who spent time in Europe during the Cold War, I dare say that it was OUR sweat, OUR toil, AND OUR MONEY that ended the Cold War without a shot being fired. And I for one would think that a simple “thank you” might be in order as opposed to the continual peanut gallery second-guessing we are forced to endure from Stockholm to Madrid.
And all of this is before even mentioning the birth dearth that is slowly, or perhaps not so slowly, turning much of Europe into a Third World territory, which the United States will, no doubt, when it comes to pass, will have to address by itself.
Finally, and I hope obviously, I exempt the U.K. from my soapbox diatribe.
End of rant.
October 24, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Mom, and all you guys, thanks for having me on your forum. I’m honoured to be asked to elaborate on the issues you’re facing right now.
First, I think Sen. Obama became more of a celebrity after it transpired that it would be him or Sen. McCain. It was not, at least not everywhere, a matter of going out and finding Obama, it was simply a choice between two and choosing the lesser evil, so to speak. Then after his speech in Berlin, Sen. Obama became the personification of regime change (anything but George W.). This at the time that Sen. McCain kept proclaiming he would continue the war in Iraq.
I think you guys may want to realise how very strongly Europe feels about Iraq. It is the major deception of most political leaders in Europe; to this day the Dutch Government for instance is highly unpopular in the eyes of many of its citizens because the PM keeps refusing a public inquiry into how the various countries did get dragged into it. One of the coalition party’s has suffered serious loss of credibility because before the latest election they promised an inquiry and then, under pressure, negated on their promise. All the Dutch people want to know is why did this war happen and the Government refuses to tell them. So, the war in Iraq is still influencing policy in Europe and the suggestions from Sen. McCain about not immediately ending the war has put him beyond credibility.
Having concluded that Sen. McCain is unacceptable, many Europeans, pragmatically, have simply looked at the alternative. From what I read here and elsewhere, Sen. Obama is unacceptable for many Christians because of the abortion issue. Well, Sen. McCain is unacceptable because of his refusal to end the war in Iraq. In fact, references in ad campaigns to his war hero status makes him rather more unpalatable.
As a final remark on this issue, I think that many Europeans can live with the fact that the war was started, but have grown increasingly weary because the US resists any and all calls to pulling out.
Then we have the leadership question which I think you yourself illustrated brilliantly. I said that Sen. McCain is not viewed over here as being a leader with the power to change things in the face of opposition from his own party. You then wrote: ‘…he was one of those calling for oversight of Fannie and Freddie two years ago, yet he got no hearing…’ and ’significant numbers of Republicans here have never been enthusiastic about him.’ Well, Mom, do I need to say more?
On to the experience topic. Well, on this I do not have a good grasp of what the European view is, if there is a unified one, but I can offer you my own. I think that accusing Obama of not being experienced is, quite frankly, rather naive. The world is going through a financial crisis of unprecedented proportions. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain has ever experienced anything like it, so neither have any experience. Period.
When 9/11 happened, both men were Senators. In what way would McCain have more experience bearing upon the role of Commander in Chief when dealing with the threat of terror? Because he was wounded in the war in Vietnam? Because he has first hand experience of the sound of cannon? Being a war hero does not make a man an experienced politician and this election is not about choosing a national war hero but about choosing the Chief Politician who also assumes the role of Commander in Chief. It is not the other way around.
Nominating Mrs Palin as running mate was a tactical move, not a strategic one. It won McCain a small battle (for press attention) but it didn’t win him any long lasting credibility. Rather the opposite. As more and more people are waking up to the possibility that Mrs. Palin might be the next President of the USA, it becomes increasingly apparent that this is not the required course. So the small victory might turn into a major defeat. Really, that is not inspiring much confidence in Sen. McCain’s ability to form long term strategic policies. Moreover, is this what experience stands for? Short term tactical gain but long term strategic loss? That would be the current Banking Crisis in a nutshell. Many people would rather disregard experience.
I guess many of you guys are focussing on the negatives of Sen. Obama because of the abortion issue and other Christian ethical considerations that are deemed most important. In Europe, many are focussing on the positive aspects of Sen. Obama because Sen. McCain has been ruled out:
1) whatever experience Sen. McCain has that Sen. Obama does not have is irrelevant with respect to financial systems falling down and climate change challenges and global food shortages.
2) The choice for Mrs Palin is the choice of a man who seemingly cannot think beyond next week.
3) McCain refuses to set a firm date for pulling out of Iraq.
4) McCain is not inspiring. He has no charisma. He does not lead, so people do not know whom to follow. He doesn’t say which way to go, he only criticises the direction someone else has chosen.
5) Sen. McCain is not trusted to be capable of changing some very unhealthy but powerful forces within the Republican Party.
6) Sen. McCain is too old. Personally I think it was a blunder of the Republican Party to support his nomination or even to let him run on their behalf.
Rallying behind Sen. Obama has a lot to do with positioning against Sen. McCain. If people don’t want Sen. Obama in the White House, they should have nominated another Republican candidate. This public opinion in Europe has not started out as a deliberate pro Obama choice (when Sen. Clinton was still in the race, the popularity of Sen. Obama was far lower); it has grown from an aversion against considering a US Government led by Sen. McCain.
I hope Wylie agrees. Time for bed now.
Robert
PS: In June, before the Financial Crisis broke, I wrote Sen. Obama a letter. I’m confident he hasn’t read it, but you may want to: http://www.ipistles.com/letter-to-the-next-president.htm
October 24, 2008 at 3:33 pm
After reading both of you, Robert and Wylie – and thanks for your stimulating interaction – my question is why Europe is so taken in by Obama? Remember, I’m seeing elements of worship in his crowds here that make me very nervous. What’s in it for Europe?
Robert, in #5, you make some strong statements: “hardly anyone here trusts his ability to grasp the issues in the first place.” In #7, you reiterate that McCain “will not be able to undo any of the damage done by the present president.” I see that as unfairly swiping McCain with the Bush paintbrush. Sen. McCain has always had difficulty within his own party – the maverick thing, and significant numbers of Republicans here have never been enthusiastic about him.
As for Iraq, I don’t think anyone in the country is looking to do other than get us out of there as fast as possible consistent with being responsible. Being there is not the decision we’d make today if we had it to do over again, but that is applying tremendous 20-20 hindsight. At the time, there was national consensus. Experience and new information recast the decision from wise to foolish, but by then it was too late. McCain certainly gets that.
As for economic policy, he was one of those calling for oversight of Fannie and Freddie two years ago, yet he got no hearing. A major probe then would have forestalled at least some of what we’re confronting today. It was Sen. Obama’s party, however, which blocked it. Today, Sen. McCain’s interest is in getting the economy back on track without stifling growth by saddling taxpayers with a nickel more than it will take to make that happen.
You’ve reported that Europe doesn’t view either Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin as credible. But Sen. Obama is? Forgive me, but I don’t get it. He’s got less experience than either of the two of them. He’s a fine rhetorician, but that plus vaulting the US into Euro style socialism isn’t going to accomplish anything except to cement deflationary standards across the global board, and bring us all into economic and social lethargy. How can that possibly be a plus for Christians or anyone else? In 2010, under McCain, we will be emerging from a tough recession and significantly wound down from our misadventure in Iraq. Under Obama, we’ll have capitulated into what used to be unthinkable – the full fledged church of state – with more than half the electorate taking in public handouts than they pay in taxes, and an economy ground to a screeching halt.
So again, I ask why? Friends, please continue to weigh in.
October 24, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Wylie: I wasn’t talking on behalf of pro-life Christians. I was trying to paint the picture that there is not all that much Sen. McCain will be able to accomplish in the international arena because he lacks credibility. I was trying to say to Mom and to others here, that viewing Sen. McCain as ‘right for the [international] challenges of the presidency’ is naive because the international community doesn’t hold him capable of constructive leadership.
My contribution is not to express my own views on Christianity or abortion. I am a Christian myself and I have an unshakable belief in God and in the Bible. However, I was not evaluating either Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama from the perspective of pro-life Christianity, I was pointing out that Sen. McCain as president will not be able to undo any of the damage done by the present president. Would you, Wylie, agree that Europe strongly favours Obama, and that in Europe, Christian ethics do not matter much in the public debate?
This is not about our personal opinions, this is about informing the guys on the other side of the pond how Europe in general regards the contestants. (Personally: well said, your last line. I wouldn’t be too quick to take lessons from us Europeans either!).
Robert
October 24, 2008 at 10:54 am
As Robert is, I am from Western Europe, and what I will say is: Robert doesn’t speak for me! The combination of protectionism and naiveté with Obama sparks real fears with a lot of Europeans who can see past our even more adoring media coverage of him(yes, our coverage makes yours seem hyper-critical) and understand the threats this world faces. From a Christian perspective when one adds in Obama’s hardline pro-abortion positions the prospect of an Obama presidency is a grim one.
But then anything approaching Christian ethics is of little concern to our media, our Government and sadly our public too. Basically, I wouldn’t be too quick to take lessons from us Europeans!
October 24, 2008 at 7:23 am
TM: ‘The problem is that – at least for now – the United States of America is not the church, and Sen. Obama is not the messiah.’
I agree. But the USA of before the year 2000 has gone. The world we more or less liked or felt more or less comfortable with has gone. Neither Sen. McCain nor Sen. Obama can bring it back. This is the unconcerting fact of our lives: things are going to be different and different is not to be equated with better.
TM: ‘I think Sen. McCain is right for the challenges of the presidency – domestic and international – and I will vote for him.’
Mom, I do, of course, respect your choice. However, I would like to chip in that Sen. McCain is only ready for the international challenges of the presidency in the eyes of those who consider the issue from an American perspective. You are an American citizen and I understand that from your perspective you consider McCain ready for international challenges.
I, on the other hand, am a European. I am Dutch; I have lived in Great Britain, I now live in Germany, and I can assure you that the overwhelming opinion over here, (public, press and government) is almost entirely against McCain. And very strongly opposed as well. I do not think that McCain as president will be able to accomplish anything at all on the international front, simply because hardly anyone over here trusts his ability to grasp the issues in the first place.
Sen. McCain is an aging war hero and for Europeans that doesn’t make him capable to lead the nations. Also, electing him President might mean having Mrs Palin in office. Neither he nor she is going to be a credible partner at the conference table as far as many if not most Europeans are concerned. When we see those ads that the Republicans are running on TV, we in Europe are amused; we are not impressed. Maybe they convince voters over at your end, from an international perspective they rather ridicule the very candidates they are supposed to promote.
The USA experiences, at present, a staggering loss of credibility, which is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented since the time you guys helped sort out Europe during WWII (and yes, I, and many of us over here, do still feel gratitude). However, almost everyone in Europe now blames the USA for the current financial crises; for the continued mess in Iraq; and for having elected the worst man to be so powerful in history. Sen. McCain is not regarded as having any prowess to change the bleak outlook.
Considering Sen. McCain as being ready for the international challenges of the presidency may turn out to be wishful thinking on the part of Americans who have those feelings; it is not based on the reality of the present world order. My prediction is that should the USA vote McCain into office, the world will gradually write off your great nation as no longer a serious partner, and will want to deny your role as leader of the free world.
Of course Europeans do not think that Sen. Obama is going to make all the right decisions. However, many over here do think that he at least will make decisions in the first place and we trust that some of those decisions might turn out to make some things better than they are at present. Sen. McCain, on the other hand, is not trusted to be capable (or willing) to stand up to the forces within the Republican Party that has propelled the USA (and the world) into the situation it is in.
This, dear Mom, is an international perspective: voting for Sen. McCain will be a vote to continue the current trend: the Decline and Fall of the USA. A vote for Sen. Obama could well turn out to be similar or even worse, many accept that, but at least there will be a chance that the current trend might be reversed.
Robert
October 23, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Hi Thomas:
Welcome to Conn-versation, and thanks for your observations. We agree that Sen. Obama is selectively using and suppressing information to craft an image that taps into religious sentiment. The problem is that he’s succeeding with far too many people, despite serious disqualifiers like Ayers and even more significantly, his position supporting the termination of surviving infants of unsuccessful abortion attempts.
I’m glad to learn that I’m not the only one troubled by the whole package.
TM
October 23, 2008 at 10:08 pm
The irony is that I think there is every reason to believe that Obama himself is of no faith. He was raised a Muslim, at least as a young child, by a Muslim stepfather and irreligious mother. Then as an adult with political aspirations in Chicago, he aligned himself with the radical liberation theologian Jeremiah Wright in what has all the earmarks of attempting to gain street cred, but little more.
If you consider that combined with his demonstrable commitment to wealth redistribution through the tax code, attempts to supress political speech that portrays him in a negative light (check out his campaign’s concerted efforts to keep journalists who had investigated the Ayers issue off the air in Chicago), and the association with Ayers itself (among many other things, like opposition to legal protection for born babies), Obama has all the earmarks of the opposite of a messiah.
How otherwise well-educated people are not concerned with these issues puzzles me no end.
October 23, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Hi Art:
You’re right to observe that some level of hope and trust are part of any political campaign. In this case, it is the intentional intensity that disturbs me. This race has become a preamble to an expected anointing.
The mainstream media is functioning like a choir for Obama. The only notable critiquing comes from Fox and the conservative talk radio outlets, along with a handful of conservative papers, journals, and websites.
In a democracy, an informed electorate is supposed to be sifting through the issues in the selection of a president. How does that happen amid a cacophany of praise choruses from the press? Answer: it’s not.
SM
October 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm
That is an interesting angle to take on the issue and not one that I have thought of before. I’m also apathetic towards the presidential race as a Ron Paul supporter (I converted from my Hillary-ism when I read Ron Paul’s book Revolution: A Manifesto).
Do you think this is something new for politics though? It seems that anytime you have a person looking for people to vote for them for a political position, whether its senior class president, governor, or president of the USA, there is always a sense of ‘hoping’ or ‘trusting’ in that person. There is a certain amount of faith that you have to give to that person. These are inherently religious concepts, as you point out, and have been pushed by Obama in his campaign.
Back to my question: do you think this is something new to politics, or just that Obama tends to push this type of rhetoric more?