perspective

Politics is trivial. Life is what’s important. There aren’t many teachers of this lesson any better than Tony Snow, and because I’m a fan, I’m going to post some of what he said to Catholic University in his commencement address to the graduates. (h/t – k/lo)

This is a way of talking about faith. American culture likes to celebrate the petulant outcast, the smart-aleck with the contempt for everything and faith in nothing. Snarky mavericks. The problem is these guys are losers. They have signed up for an impossible mission. Because they’ve decided they’re going to create all the meaning in their lives. They’ve either decided that no moral law exists or they will be the creator, the author of those laws. Now one road leads to complete and total anarchy. Life is solitary, nasty, brutish and short. The other is to insanity, since it requires playing God. We know in our hearts, intuitively, from our first years as children, that the universe unfolds with a discernable order and that moral laws, far from being convenient social conventions, are firm and unalterable. They predate us, they will survive us. Rather than admitting our weakness a lot of times, we just decide we’ll try to get by. And maybe rather than giving God credit, we’ll try to look for a cheap substitute.

Walk into a bookstore, you’ll know what I mean. The shelves are groaning underneath the trendy tomes promising salvation — medicine balls, herbs, purges, all sorts of weird stuff. In politics, there’s a variant that elevates government to the status of God. It says that it is the source of love. It ought to be the recipient of your tithes, but government, while it does pursue compassionate ends, cannot be loving and personal. It treats all of us as completely equal rather than uniquely divine. The point is you can’t escape the question of God and you can’t escape the question of commitments.

When it comes to faith, I’ve taken my own journey. You will have to take your own. But here’s what I know. Faith is as natural as the air we breathe. Religion is not an opiate, just the opposite. It is the introduction to the ultimate extreme sport. There is nothing that you can imagine that God cannot trump. As Paul said “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” And once you realize that there is something greater than you out there, then you have to decide, “Do I acknowledge it and do I act upon it?” You have to at some point surrender yourself. And there is nothing worthwhile in your life that will not at some point require an act of submission. It’s true of faith and friendship. It is a practical passage [of the Bible], especially to marriage.

It all comes back to purpose. Why are we here? What do we hope to accomplish in our lives, and what’s stopping us from getting there? Are we just too comfortable where we are to take a risk and to try something new? All of us have to answer that question for ourselves. As long as we keep searching, we can be sure that we will find what we need, but it may not be what we expect to find at the end of the journey.

Tags:

blair announces his resignation

Tony Blair will step down on June 27th, handing over the keys to Number 10 to Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. It’s not a minute too soon for those who are convinced that he talked Britain and the United States into an unnecessary preemptive war. They are looking for someone to blame for what they see as a failed policy in Iraq, and Tony Blair is a convenient target.

History will be kinder to President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair than we realize. While we are still engaged in this war in Iraq, it is difficult to view the record of these two men through any other prism. Tony Blair will leave Number 10 with a record of achievement that cannot be matched by any previous Labour Prime Minister, and I hope that Gordon Brown intends to keep the US/UK alliance as strong as Blair made it during his time in office.

Blair’s resignation speech is here, but his farewell address is not what we should remember about him. This is.

From a June 2003 speech before Congress:

That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We’re not fighting for domination. We’re not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We’re not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds.

And this is not a war of civilizations, because each civilization has a unique capacity to enrich the stock of human heritage. We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind – black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different – to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That’s what we’re fighting for. And it’s a battle worth fighting.

And I know it’s hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I’ve never been to, but always wanted to go. I know out there there’s a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, ‘Why me? And why us? And why America?’

And the only answer is, ‘Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.’

And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you. You are not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.

The Economist has a good recap of the Blair years here. Will Gordon Brown be this kind of ally to America? Time will tell, but I’m not optimistic about that possibility.

Tags: , ,

rudy and those planned parenthood donations

What Matt Lewis said.

Ok…I can’t let it go at that. We have known all along that Rudy was pro-choice, so this shouldn’t surprise any of the conservatives out there who have been paying attention to the ’08 candidates. Most conservatives who support Rudy do so because they think he would be tough on terrorism and because they like his record on crime in NYC. Those conservatives see the life issue as secondary, so the fact that Rudy Giuliani donated $900 to Planned Parenthood won’t make much difference to that group of supporters.

Rudy’s problem is that he tried to pull a “Mitt”– where his “I hate abortion” line is his equivalent of Romney’s “personally pro-life” line. There’s no question that Romney has some work to do on the abortion question to convince pro-lifers that his conversion is genuine, but at least he has, to some degree, admitted that he changed his mind on that subject. What conservatives respected about Rudy Giuliani is that he was unapologetic at one point about being pro-choice, and that he was willing to defend his opposite views from the SoCons on gay marriage and abortion. He was the “authentic” candidate (for lack of a better word). Giuliani can’t legitimately claim that he hates abortion if he supports taxpayer funding of abortion and speaks at NARAL “Champions of Choice” lunches. Like Matt Lewis said, that looks more like someone who is not simply pro-choice, but an abortion advocate.

Will this matter to the majority of Republicans who would be willing to sell their souls if it meant beating Hillary? Probably not. This sounds a bit harsh, I know. We have to be honest with ourselves about what we are willing to accept in our nominee and whether winning has to mean compromising on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

Tags: , ,

ronald reagan is still dead

The only Reagan I saw in that debate hall Thursday night was Nancy Reagan…and she’s probably a moderate on social issues. But seriously folks…

Chris Matthews adds an interesting dynamic to the normal cookie-cutter type debate, where the moderator generally tries to stay above the fray and just asks the questions. Matthews should have been watching how Brian Williams handled the Democrats in their debate.  I can’t be objective about this overbearing jerk, and I can’t believe that I actually watched him badger the candidates when I could have been watching good stuff on network TV. Just as Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were the distraction in the Dem debate, Chris Matthews filled the same role for this Republican debate. Grrr…I just wanted to slap him half the time.

Candidates who looked pretty good in my view:  Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee.  Romney needs a better answer to those abortion questions. He needs to explain his conversion/evolution on that issue by being honest about his past. He won’t ever be that 100% conservative, but he might be able to change minds if he can just get his story straight on who he really is. Giuliani deserves credit, I guess, for telling us how he really feels about overturning Roe, but the answer that he gave could be a sticking point against him for SoCons who might have found other reasons to support him.  Huckabee performed better than I expected.  As others have said, there’s nothing to distinguish him as a leader or someone who one could see as the President of the United States.  He deserves a second look, but I don’t know about a second debate.

There’s no doubt in my mind that McCain would scare the heck out of terrorists, his views on torture aside.  But I didn’t see anything from him that convinced me that he should be the Republican nominee. His performance was disappointing.  It’s still early, so he has time to recover from this.

I liked listening to what  Ron Paul had to say.  Even though he had different views than most of of the other candidates, he still was able to articulate those views without sounding like Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich.    Unfortunately for him, only his die-hard fans believe that Dr. Paul actually won the debate.  (I really can’t say what exactly they saw that I missed…)

The rest of the field just faded out. We gave those second and third-tier candidates a chance to blow us away with their performance in this debate, and they did not.  I’m not sure whether this is a good idea to have all these candidates with minimal support as a part of debates. It limits the time for every candidate involved, and we need to hear more from Romney, Giuliani, and McCain than every other candidate.  I know that we are dissatisfied with those choices, but I didn’t see any of the other candidates step up Thursday night and show that they should be right there with the top three.

There’s also no guarantee that Fred Thompson will be the right guy for the Republicans to nominate.  Sure his record looks good, but do we really know that he could be a good President?  Being popular and photogenic only seems to work for Democrats. He’s the anti-”Rudy McRomney” and that seems to be enough for Republican conservatives.  Is this really the guy we want to run the country?  Maybe I’m the only one still skeptical of all the Fred hype.  We should nominate the best guy for the job, not necessarily someone who gets the most publicity.  I’m still undecided after this debate.  There’s still time for the top three (or Fred) to get my attention.
Tags: , ,

rethinking the role of the “religious right”

Cal Thomas:

Nearly 30 years after religious conservatives decided to re-enter the political arena — after abandoning it as “dirty” and leading to compromise — what do they have to show for it? The country remains sharply divided and the reconciling message they used to preach has been obscured by the crass pursuit of the golden ring of political power. In the end, they got neither the power, nor the Kingdom; only the glory and even that is now fading, as these older leaders pass from the scene.

This is not to say there is no role for conservative Christians in the civic life of their nation. There is. But Christians must first understand that the issues they most care about — abortion, same-sex marriage and cultural rot — are not caused by bad politics, but are matters of the heart and soul. Some evangelicals wish to broaden the political agenda beyond these issues to poverty, social justice and the environment. Politics can never completely cure the ills of any of these, but the message Christians bring about salvation and redemption can. Besides, they can never “convert” people to their point of view.

Too many conservative Christians have focused on the “seen” rather than the “unseen,” thinking appearances at the White House, or on “Meet the Press,” is evidence that they are making a difference. And too much attention has been paid to individual personalities, rather than to the One these preachers had originally been called to exalt.

He is saying that many leaders of the “religious right” have lost their focus. Christians should always influence their culture positively and fight for what we believe is right. But like Thomas says in a previous paragraph, “Politics is about compromise. The message of the church is about Truth.” The Truth has been lost or conveniently forgotten. You will never be popular by telling the whole Truth about Christianity and its requirements on believers in Christ. The answer to societal ills and moral decline isn’t a political one. It’s a spiritual one. Once we recognize that, maybe those who wish to speak for evangelical Christians will start concentrating more on changing hearts and minds on these social issues, than on gaining political power for themselves.

Tags: ,