I have never been entirely sure what Mr. Obama has been insisting it is that we "can" do, but I'm fairly sure we as a country did it last night. After witnessing an historic election, we can all take a deep breath and think about the future. As for me, I mentioned a few days ago I would have some thoughts on this whole election season, so I won't waste any time getting down to it. And yes, it's quite long, but I think much of this needs to be said. Some of it may sound harsh, but it is all meant to be constructive and in love. Here we go ...
- I have never followed politics particularly closely, in large part due to the diarrhea of information and attacks lobbed at the American public for months on end. I grow tired of it rather easily, and have usually not been very involved in politics. I knew a little bit, but I was hardly up to date on all the issues, because all the sides were saying one thing and accusing the other side of saying something else, which the other side denied and attacked the other side for something outlandish, which was in turn denied ... and on ... and on ... and on. This election was different, mainly because of the current state of the country. I still am no guru, but this election captured my attention and made me really listen to what was being said, which brings me to my next conclusion ...
- Politicians as a whole must think we are idiots. I think I understand why I can hardly tell where a candidate stands on an issue. He won't say. He'd rather tell me about the time his opponent ran over a puppy and laughed about it with his buddies. You know why? Because he thinks that's what we care about. That's what we grab on to. Many Republicans I've heard are too busy calling Obama a Muslim, a terrorist, or the anti-Christ (or some combination there of) to hear what he actually says. Many Democrats are too busy calling John McCain senile, Sarah Palin an idiot, or ridiculing both of them for being in bed with Bush to really care what they propose we as a nation do. It's mind-numbing. It's why if I saw another ad from Mitch McConnell talking about Bruce Lunsford living in Chicago or an ad from Bruce Lunsford accussing Mitch McConnell of being "one of the most corrupt members of Congress," I probably would have had an aneurism. I think it's time we as a people stopped listening and accepting these cheap attacks as a substantive argument. I want to hear why Barack Obama's plan for the economy is inferior to John McCain's and the reasons why (or vice versa). I want to hear what you will do about the issues that threaten us, not how much of a tool you can make your opponent look like. Part of this means we stop spreading the propaganda on behalf of our own candidates. I have heard people call Barack Obama a socialist (more on this in a second) that I'm nearly certain have no idea what socialism actually is. They just heard their buddy say it, who may or may not have a clue why he even thinks it. People get a chain letter detailing the reasons why the Bible says Obama is the anti-Christ and then just spew it to all their friends without thinking for a second whether the argument even makes sense. For the sake of intellectual honesty, can we please just stop? Which leads me to my next point ...
- Barack Obama is not a socialist. Seriously. Look, I didn't vote for the man, for a variety of reasons, but this little charge has been tossed around for too long. It's ridiculous. If you want socialism, go buy a Rage Against the Machine album. Obama is calling for a tax increase for the extremely wealthy, and a tax cut for everyone else. That's not socialism, that's taxes. They're in the Bible, you have to pay them, and every government in the universe has them. It's unfortunate he chose the words, "redistribute the wealth," because all he's really doing is raising taxes for a small minority of Americans in order to give a tax break to everyone else. The people that complain that he's merely giving handouts to those who are too lazy to earn it themselves implies that everyone making less than $200,000 a year is lazy. I cannot begin to state how arrogant and elitist that sounds. For that matter, why exactly is everyone clamoring for a tax break for the extremely wealthy? If we've learned one thing from the current economic crisis, isn't it that the power of greed knows no bounds? Is it really safe to assume that by giving large companies tax breaks that they will take their savings and use it for the good of the people by creating more jobs? Take a look at AIG, who received several billion dollars worth of backing in the form of a government bailout, and then takes a $500,000 executive retreat to a resort, indulging in massages, manicures/pedicures, and other lavish expenses. Their excuse for this? It wasn't anything more than they'd always done. Case in point. Perhaps I just don't know my politics very well (which is certainly possible), but most of the people I've heard calling Obama a socialist actually stand to benefit from his proposals. Which leads me to my next point ...
- My Republican friends (in my best John McCain voice), everybody just needs to CHILL. Grab some Valium, take a deep breath, and relax. It's going to be OK. I spent a few hours watching people update their Facebook statuses last night, and it was nothing short of hilarious. You would think some people have never seen a Democrat before. We've had Democratic presidents before, and we'll have them again. Life will not cease to function. Obama will not be our dictator (as some suggested), and he will not abolish the voting process to inaugurate his reign of terror (seriously, some people actually said that). If he does, you can come kick me in the shin. I promise.
- And for my Christian friends, we definitely need to chill. I think some people have forgotten that God is never surprised by an election, nor is he ever thwarted. Every government under heaven from eternity past to the end of humanity has been instituted and ordained by God. Obama, even if he is the anti-Christ (which he's not ... that's absurd), could never thwart the ultimate sovereignty of God. "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" (Psalm 115:3). Rest in that, Christian, and act as though you believe it. The rampant panic last night does not suggest a very faithful people. Which brings me to ...
- I can't help but be disappointed by the reaction of dismay and fear last night. First, for the people threatening to leave the country ... well, you might as well pack up and go, because I can think of nothing more childish and un-American than leaving the country just because your guy didn't win (even if you weren't serious). You may have scoffed (rightfully) at the Democrats who said it when Bush was elected, and it is equally ridiculous to say it now. Also, last night, whether you like the outcome or not, was a truly historic thing in our nations history. America just elected a black President. That's HUGE. Meanwhile, most of the Christians I know are belly-aching because society as we know it will cease to exist. What a terrible message for the church to send to the African-American community. We should be marked as a people of love, rejoicing for our country's progress of racial reconciliation, and instead we pack up and make plans for Australia. Truly sad. And finally ...
- You now have an obligation, Christian. You are to pray. You are to pray for this country and you are to pray for its leaders. It's not merely a good idea, it's a command. I don't care if you hate Barack Obama with the hatred of a thousand suns, you now are obligated to bathe him and his office in prayer. So any resentment you have should be set aside, for the sovereignty of God has spoken and you have a new leader. A prayer such as, "Lord, please don't let Obama be such a tool and wreck everything" does not count. As Christians, we are called to submit to the authorities and to pray for them. There is absolutely no way around it.
There. Rant over. You can now yell at me in the comments and call me a liberal-loving moron. :-)
Posts
5 comments:
"Politicians as a whole must think we are idiots." Well, to be honest, I believe many Americans are when it comes to politics. They fall for political rhetoric ALL THE TIME, that's why they use it. I actually heard a girl say that Obama would make sure she wouldn't have to worry about putting gas in her tank or paying her mortgage. Check this link out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg There's the fact that people actually believe crap like "I'm going to give companies a $3000 tax credit if they create a good job." Please, it costs MUCH more than that to hire somebody at full time at just minimum wage. People don't look at the facts, that's why their rhetoric works, on both sides of the isle. Another example, there's all those people who are fooled every election year by the "He's going to take away your Medicare." arguement, even though nobody has that in their plans and nobody has ever actually done that.
"Barack Obama is not a socialist.... Obama is calling for a tax increase for the extremely wealthy, and a tax cut for everyone else." ACTUALLY, his plan calls for giving those who don't pay income tax a check. That may not be pure socialism, but it's very socialistic. I think there's also the fear of his true intentions. Like you mentioned, what they say and actually end up doing are two different things. He has nearly 25 entitlement programs he's said he's going to enact. There's no way he's going to get that from the top 5%. He's going to have to tax everybody more, in a socialism type way, if he's going to pay for it. And, it is socialistic to expect the federal government to handle all these social and entitlement programs.
Not to mention, he wrote in his own book "Dreams of my Father" that he associated with a guy named Frank,who was later identified as Frank Marshall Davis... a communist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html AND, he also mentioned in there that he went out of his way to associate with professors who were communist. Now, I'm not going to jump to conclusions and call him a communist before he even enacts any laws but... mixing his background with the fact that he's been ranked the most liberal senator (and suddenly jumped to the middle when he ran for president) leads me to expect some very socialist principles from him.
"The people that complain that he's merely giving handouts to those who are too lazy to earn it themselves implies that everyone making less than $200,000 a year is lazy. I cannot begin to state how arrogant and elitist that sounds. For that matter, why exactly is everyone clamoring for a tax break for the extremely wealthy?" I know how it sounds but one of my biggest concerns is taxing one group more to just give it in cash to another. As a biostatisician, I can tell you it's a fact that drug and alcohol abuse is correlated with income level. It's irresponsible and greedy to just take from one without ensuring that their money will go to a much needed use. If we're really concerned about the poor then we'll leave the money to the charities to ensure that they get the goods and services they need. If you just give it in cash, most of it is not going to be used to buy what they really need. (No, this does not apply to EVERYONE but it applies to a significant enough proportion.)
And, it's not the concern for tax breaks for the wealthy... it's concern for small businesses. He said only 2% of businesses are above that level but that's completely underestimating their impact on the economy. Clearly they are really productive companies to be making that much money. One such example is logging companies in Maine. They hire many blue collar workers! Plus, the question of "How far are we going to go with this progressive tax?" At some point you're severly punishing success and enabling those on the bottom to depend on government hand outs more.
"If we've learned one thing from the current economic crisis," it's that the government needs to stay out of the economy. What would cause all these greedy CEO's to think that they could get away with their bad practices? If it was just "deregulation" you wouldn't expect SO MANY to jump of the cliff. Perhaps their friends in congress who had their back? (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have given A LOT to Democrats.) Check out this article: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977488371 And, read up on the Community Reinvestment Act that forced so many lending companies to lend to people who had no right to get loans.
"Is it really safe to assume that by giving large companies tax breaks that they will take their savings and use it for the good of the people by creating more jobs?" Companies don't pay taxes, we do. If you tax them more, they're certainly not going to just eat it. They're going to raise prices, cut dividends to investors or cut jobs. When Bush cut the top taxes, revenues to the government doubled and the unemployment rate went to under 5%! A lot of times, employing people actually brings them revenue by allowing them to create more products or services to sell. And, there are crazy tax loops that allow companies to keep their revenues overseas where the tax rates are MUCH lower. If we tax them too much, they'll just move somewhere else.
"I think some people have forgotten that God is never surprised by an election, nor is he ever thwarted." Nope, I haven't forgotten. but, the Bible also gives us many examples of what happens when His people turn their backs on Him. I think many Christians aren't feeling like God was surprised but more like America has turned their back on basic Christian truths in turn for a tax cut. And, I was only joking when I wrote on people's walls that I was moving to New Zealand! I have no intention of going anywhere... just felt like acting like a crazy liberal. ;-) I'm still a very proud American but will also keep praying that we have a leader again soon that will fight to protect the right to life, the sanctity of marriage, reward success instead of taxing it, etc.
Umm...that's a quick round up of some of my political opinions :)
~ Dana
Wow, thanks for the opinions, Dana. I think your comment was longer than my post! That's impressive.
For the record, I wasn't really picking on anyone in particular. I didn't even know if was you who said New Zealand, I just remember seeing that. Please don't take any of this personally (I don't think you did, by the way).
I won't respond to all your points, but here's a few things I would say. Yes, Obama has some "socialistic" tendencies, but so does the entire Democratic party. It's what makes them Democrats. On the sliding scale of politics, Democrats will always be "socialistic" in comparison to Republicans, just as Republicans will always be more "fascist" than Democrats. It doesn't mean that either can be safely labeled a socialist or a fascist. My problem is that many people blindly throw around the term socialist without knowing why, or being able to support it. Clearly, you don't fall in that category, as you have strong opinions and arguments to back it up. I respect that. Also, as I mentioned before, I'm far from a political guru, and I still have much to learn, so the last thing I want to come across as is condescending.
I will point out, being in the banking industry, that to say that the Community Reinvestment Act forced bankers to make bad lending choices is incorrect. I've had to do a lot of training on the CRA, and it doesn't stipulate lending to people with bad credit or provide a quota for different income levels. It merely attempts to regulate fairness in lending, which is absolutely a just and right thing to do, but very difficult to legislate. I agree there are flaws in the system, but ultimately many of the lenders that got us in this mess did so to pad their own pockets, not out of pressure from government regulation, in my opinion.
And to your last point, you are absolutely correct. Resting in God's sovereignty does not mean passivity. I probably should have said that, but it was pretty long as it is! We need to stand up and let our voice be heard, but I read a lot of things from people that really disappointed me, because it reeked of despair. Yes, I disagree with Obama on some moral issues, and yes, I think we should try and support moral issues that we as Christians believe strongly in. But at the end of the day, the country has spoken, and our job now is to submit to our leaders and support them. It doesn't mean we won't disagree, but it means we do so respectfully and with maturity. My concern is that much of the disagreement I saw lacked both of those.
Well thanks again for the thanks! And I could go on forever about politics lately... sorry about the length, haha! ;-)
And, I know you weren't picking on anybody! I was just admitting that I said that... mostly b/c I was making fun of all the liberals who wanted to run to Canada, and yet never did! (Come on, don't we all wish Barbara Streisand would have left?!)
I see your point but I would argue that there's "socialistic" and there's "progressive." Up until recently, the left in this country wasn't nearly as far left as they've become. I've read a lot of liberals lately who have become disenchanted with their party b/c of how far left they're becoming. But, you're absolutely right... people do throw around big terms (political, religious, etc) without knowing what they mean at all!
And, that's very interesting to know about the banking industry. Although, I wasn't quite talking about the people in each individual bank, more so the upper level people. And, "forced" was probably too strong of a word, maybe more like "pressured" would be better! There has been a lot of talk about politicians and people like ACORN actually intimidating senior people to lend to minorities more for their political or personal gain than anything else. (I actually heard several stories of ACORN members busting into business meetings and just standing there to intimidate... may just be stories though!) Here's an interesting article from the UK:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/09/29/if_you_lose_your_house__blame_bill_clinton
I particularly like the sentence "Capitalists have traditionally looked at the colour of people's money, not of their skin." First, there's a poverty issue amongst minorities. I'm sorry but until that's fixed, lending won't "look" fair because banks just shouldn't lend to people based on race but credit history. This is why there shouldn't be any social engineering when it comes to financial markets. This day and age, if a company doesn't want to lend because of race, it's going to be their loss because there's going to be somebody else out there who is willing to take their business.
And, I'm sure you're right that they did this to pad their own pockets but generally business men who bankrupt their own companies don't fare so well. Not too mention, it's incredible how long this had been going on "under the radar." I just think it's shady how much money Democrats have gotten from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (1. Dodd, 2. Kerry, 3. Obama, 4. Clinton, 5. Kanjorski) And then there's Barney Frank, the so called regulator who, two months before the collapse, said everything was great! (That can be seen on youtube.) And then there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Why did all the democrats fight against regulation then claimed they didn't? (Look up Chris Dodd on Wikipedia too...) There's just so much clear lying going on. Political power + business cash = disaster to me. There just needs to be more transparency on both sides. (And, this isn't to say all Republicans are honest but they're looking better to me right now!)
And to your last point. Yep, there's a fine line between having "righteous anger" and letting despair rule over hope!
Burly! Hey bro - good to see what you're up to. I didn't know a) that you were going to SBTS and b) that you had a blog.
I have several friends at SBTS. Good stuff.
Anyway... I enjoyed reading through some of your rantings and ravings. You're a good writer, my friend.
Keep up the good work.
Hey Chris, that was a bravely sensible blog post on politics that you wrote. I think a good barometer of America's sense of politics would be people's Facebook status the day after the election. Personally, I have a word for everyone who throws the word socialist or terrorist or similar things at Obama. It rhymes with retard. It rhymes so well with retard because it is, in fact, the word retard. Just like all of the people who were mad in 2004 when Bush legitimately won, these people need to calm down. There have only been a couple of fair things that I have seen written about the election of Obama and this is one of them. Good job.
Post a Comment