November 2, 2008

• Come Let us Reason Together ...

  The great thing is to make him value an opinion for some quality other than truth, thus introducing an element of dishonesty and make-believe into the heart of what otherwise threatens to become a virtue. . . 

  Screwtape to Wormwood
  Letter #14

  One of the things I've considered is pursuit of a degree in philosophy.  One of the reasons I like philosophy is the branch of philosophy that helps you understand whether an argument is valid or bullshit.  When one side argues in a way that demonstrates that they have little regard for truth or fairness, they may win the moment, but they will lose the war, every time. 

  I've made clear my preference in the Presidential election, and I believe I've made clear my reasons for my choice.  My TOP THREE are: 

  The economic policies Barack Obama proposes and supports are the ones that I believe we need in order to navigate our way out of this economic mess we're in.  We have a very clear distinction between the two candidates in that Barack Obama's policies are "bottom up" and John McCain's are "trickle down."  Bottom up policies have been demonstrated to work.  When people in entry and lower level positions earn living wages they buy education for themselves and their children, health insurance, and homes.  They start small businesses and become employers.  When economic policy is geared to support the "producers" at the top, time and again what we have seen is that the money doesn't trickle down, it lines the coffers of the producers creating a "redistribution of wealth" from the middle class to the very few at the top.

  Foreign policy in this country has taken a hard turn away from the path Western Civilization has adopted ever since the Christian theologian Augustine outlined the requirements for Just War almost 1700 years ago.  (The only other time we left this path we had the Crusades which have left a black eye on Christianity and Western Civilization that 1,000 years hasn't healed.)  Barack Obama is proposing a return to the Just War doctrine and a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine.  At the bottom of this blog I will provide a brief outline of both Just War and the Bush Doctrine. 

  Limited Government - in this case I'm looking at the Republican Party and saying, No matter how loudly you may say it, I am more convinced by what you've done than what you've said.  Under the Republicans between 2001 and 2007 we have suffered the greatest assault on individual liberties perpetrated in our entire national history.  We've seen the Bill of Rights assualted time and again with illegal search and seizure, wiretapping, and government intrusion.  On this side, I am with Benjamin Franklin who said, "A people who would trade freedom for security will have neither."  Barack Obama has articulated a determination to restore rights and freedoms to the people of the United States of America who are not terrorists and do not deserve to be treated as though guilty until proven innocent.

  What is not on my list:

  Social Policy

  This is a difficult one for me.  I have in the past voted for candidates based upon their positions with regard to social issues such as abortion.  I no longer do this for three reasons.  First, they don't follow through.  We have voted in politicians all over this country who believe in right to life, but the only thing they do is draft legislation which they know will never build a consensus and never be enacted.  In this country we have a Constitution which limits government from interfering in the lives of private citizens and most of the laws that have been attempted in the abortion arena are not compatible with that Constitutional Principle, guaranteeing that they will be struck down when they reach the Supreme Court.

  Second, if politicians really wanted to impact the rates of abortion, they would enact policies that support families, and especially they would enact policies and fully fund programs and mandates that benefit children such as the Child Health Insurance Program, Head Start, WIC, IDEA, and NCLB.  There would be tax incentives for companies with family friendly policies.  We can argue all day long about whether the current versions of these programs are efficient or effective, but I can't imagine that anyone would argue that we should close them down. 

  I have concluded that between the politicians on the Right who have claimed social policy as their plank and the politicians on the Left who have been demonized for their support of individual rights but have actually proposed legislation that is within the proper sphere of governement under our constitution and does impact families in a positive way, the people on the Left are the ones who are more likely to create conditions that would be favorable to real families.

  My final reason is where my religious faith comes in.  It has to do with what I believe to be the proper sphere of the church and what I see as the proper sphere of government.  Within Christian tradition there is a long and wonderful movement called the Social Gospel which has brought about societal and cultural change on such a grand scale as the abolition of slavery.  Some of those grand initiatives have been impacted through legislation, but cultural changes like economic ones do not occur top down, they happen bottom up.  If you want to change the way that people think, you have to show them one person at a time why the other way is better. 

  I like to use Alcoholics Anonymous versus Prohibition as my example of this principle.  Prohibition didn't do anything to impact rates of alcoholism.  Alcoholics found illegal alternatives and carried on through Prohibition.  But when AA began to work one individual at a time telling them that with the help of a Higher Power they could be recovered from alcoholism, lives began to change.  Compare the radio and television bits in their treatment of alcohol from the 40's 50's and 60's to the way it has been portrayed in the 80's 90's and 00's.  There is a profound shift in the way we view it.  In the 50's sitcoms a person who refused a drink was a churlish boor.  Now, it is the person who would proffer alcohol to someone who has refused who is the churlish boor. 

   And for my last comment on the Social Gospel, I want to point to a phenomenon that has been reported on major networks and written of in newspapers for weeks.  People who are voting Democratic have a deep distrust of the American voting system.  Well documented cases of voter disenfranchisement have created a sense that people on the Right are willing to Lie, Cheat, and Steal in order to have their way.  In other words, the behavior of some of the people on the Right has shouted to the world that Christians cannot be trusted.  The advance of the gospel has been harmed and it's been harmed precisely because some Christians have been willing to sacrifice truth and mercy in their pursuit of justice.

  *************

  Just War Doctrine

  Just cause

  The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993, "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

  Comparative justice

  While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

  Legitimate authority

  Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.

  Right intention

  Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

  Probability of success

  Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

  Last resort

  Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

  Proportionality

  The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

  Bush Doctrine

  Unilateralism
           The United States has the right to act unilaterally to carry out foreign policy decisions, no consensus of nations sought or required.
  Attacking Countries that Harbor Terrorists
           Whether or not those countries have committed acts of aggression against the US.
  Preventive Strikes
           The United States has the right to pre-emptively wage war against countries who might one day threaten the security of the United States.
  Democratic Regime Change
            Exporting Democracy to nations whether or not they have any tradition, foundation or basis for Democratic governance in their culture.
  
  

   

  • 10:42 am
  • 34 Comments