[Note: On this blog I plan on making all sorts of strong statements above my pay grade - statements I don't know enough to back up with erudition. I submit these claims to you in hopes that those of you who know more (ir who just think differently) will try to set me straight.]

We’re bombing Pakistan again, apparently taking the lives of civilians, against the warnings of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari that these bombings only serve to increase the likelihood of the growth of terrorist activity, calling them “counterproductive” and “detrimental to America’s war on terror.”

Let me try to break this down in simple logic, because apparently we’re having a hard time getting it.

Premise 1: America (and everyone else) wants less Muslim terrorists to engage in terrorism.

Premise 2: When America bombs non-terrorists in the Muslim world, even unintentionally, more people are likely to sign on with the terrorists.

Conclusion: We probably shouldn’t drop bombs that will kill non-terrorists.

I know that we don’t “mean” to do this – that it’s collaterral damage, as the current doctrine teaches – but apart from the fact that “collaterral damage” is such an ugly idea that I can hardly utter the words without vomiting in my mouth just a little bit, at some point we’ve got to ask ourselves if this kind of foreign policy is doing more harm than good. I have tried to ask that question, which as I said earlier was one of the primary reasons I voted for Obama, not that he won’t disappoint me.

…

Just finished reading Profit Over People and plan to start others soon! Chomsky has been called (by someone more important than me) “one of the most important intellectuals alive.” If you don’t know this man, get to know him here.

Well, I voted for Barack Obama. This is only the second time I’ve voted, and now I have cast one for each of the dominant parties (with neither of which I’m registered). To be honest, I don’t like voting. I think people – Christian people – take it way too seriously. I think it takes on almost sacred significance in our country, which means it’s borderline / arguably idolatrous. I respect the arguments of those who don’t vote, and if you don’t, you should probably take another look at them. I know people died to give me the right to vote, mind you. It’s just that I also believe Jesus died to protect me from competing allegiances. And our current system is kind of broken, given that we always seems to be voting for “the lesser of two evils” and that both dominant parties are way too tied to corporate power. But nevertheless I voted, and I voted for Barack Obama (though not without hesitation). Here are the reasons why.

Why I voted for Barack Obama

1.    His foreign policies have more of a chance to quell international hostilities. He will actually talk to our national enemies in seeking peaceful reconciliation. I have no illusions that Obama is anti-war. Let’s be honest, now. The way he talks about going to war in Afghanistan reminds me of someone Obama isn’t supposed to be like at all. I have no doubt that if put in Bush’s shoes, Obama would have given the American people what they wanted – a war. It might have been a different war, but it would have been a war nonetheless. Nevertheless, Obama and McCain have very different strategies for dealing with hostile enemies. McCain has criticized Obama for being willing to talk to terrorists. That just about sealed the deal for me, honestly. It’s that kind of knee-jerk anti-listening reaction that our world simply cannot withstand. I believe that Obama’s foreign policies, not to mention his overall personality, demeanor, and symbolic significance, may significantly reduce certain hostilities in the international arena. Let me also say that this is a life issue for me; if we value life from the womb to the grave and everywhere in between, we must stop acting like foreign policy has nothing to do with being pro-life.

2.    He improves America’s image worldwide, which is more than symbolically important. We need to distance ourselves from the international image the last few regimes have made for us. I am saying this as a matter of both “national security” and international stability, not sentimentalism. Our world is incredibly hostile right now, and much of that hostility is directed toward America as a result of our international forays in the past couple decades. I’m not saying their perception of American activity is correct. But I am saying it is important for our safety and perhaps survival, as well as the safety and survival of those who suffer in other parts of the world because of our world’s hostilities; given that I believe these things are worth voting for, I voted for Obama. In their minds, he represents something dramatically different, and this change may result in renewed efforts from both sides to seek peaceful arrangements and less violent conflict resolution.

3.    He will protect us (somewhat) from the tyranny of (unequally free) free market ideology. I resonate with those who fear the tyranny of big government. In case this needs to be said, I am not a communist. But I do not believe that allowing a few political lords to rule the day is much worse than letting a few economic lords rule the day. What’s more, in this country our political leaders will always be at least somewhat accountable to forces outside themselves – the populace hopefully – whereas multinational corporate tycoons don’t have the same structures of accountability. I’m not saying all CEO’s are evil. Of course they aren’t. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but certainly no more so than battle cries about “the government taking all my money” and “giving handouts to lazy people who don’t want to work.” I think these battle cries are propaganda that do not represent the complex reality of poverty in our country and our world. I know that in some cases they represent the sad reality, but even then they often ignore some of the deeper roots of current class divisions. I’m pretty confident America will never become socialist, so I welcome moderate shifts away from what we’ve been doing. And by the way, there is no such thing as a totally free market; that has always been somewhat of a rhetorical invention that benefits those at the top while providing an excuse to ignore or exploit those on the bottom. For what it’s worth, both Obama and McCain are probably more corporate controlled than I’d like. This is all, of course, my as-of-yet-relatively-undereducated-opinion. All I know is that the rich seem to be getting richer while the poor become poorer, both here and abroad, and I think (emphasize “think”) that Obama’s policies are more likely to put a check on MNC’s and TNC’s and other elements of free market tyranny than McCain’s.

4.    His policies may actually lead to fewer abortions. These arguments have been rehearsed elsewhere, as have the accusations that they are misinformed, dishonest, ridiculous, etc. I respect those who reject them, but I cannot do so. Let me first say that I think abortion is always un-justified killing. (As a pacifist, how could I justifiably think otherwise?) As far as the two current platform options, the basic difference is this: one side aims to reduce abortions through anti-abortion legislation, that is, by making abortion as illegal as possible. The other side thinks a mother’s “right to choose” must be protected, and instead aims to reduce abortions by attacking the causes that lead to abortion: ignorance, non-“safe” sex, poverty, lack of adequate health care, etc. (I’m sure some people don’t really care about reducing abortions, but I don’t believe Barack Obama is one of them; they are heartless and will not enjoy meeting God face-to-face in the eschaton.) As for side one, it is often pointed out that the next President will likely appoint numerous Supreme Court Justices, which could affect the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade. But even if RVW were overturned, this would not outlaw abortion; it would merely return to each state the power to decide the matter. So again, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and even if many states do vote to outlaw abortion, as long as people still have transportation, abortions will not be drastically reduced. Many states will protect abortion legally, so all people have to do is get a ride to those states and have an abortion there. I’m not saying we shouldn’t seek RVW’s overturning, just that it’s not as foolproof a method of reducing abortions as we are led to believe. Add to that the fact that Repubs have had the White House for eight years now and we haven’t seen much in the way of abortion reduction, I have lost much faith in this method. On the other hand, it just makes sense to me that reducing the causes of abortions – as much as this is feasible – will result in fewer abortions. You can find the specific stats elsewhere, but there actually tend to be less abortions in places where it is legal (certain parts of Europe) than in places where it is criminalized (Africa and Latin America). I don’t put much stock in stats so I won’t be upset if you disregard them. I don’t expect any dramatic victories in this regard, but I do hope things may improve a bit.

5.    An Obama victory may force many Christians to come to terms with the end of Constantinianism. I haven’t yet written out a full explanation of this one that I’m happy with. Suffice it to say for now that I am very glad to poke as many holes as possible in the idea that America is, ever has been, or ever could be “a Christian nation” (or, more broadly, that the West is, ever has been, or ever could be “a Christian civilization”). The world is not going to help us (the church) do what we’ve been called to do – make disciples of the strange Messiah who was put to deathby his world’s sole superpower. It is about time we learn to acknowledge that to be followers of Jesus is to be different in significant ways than people who are not followers of Jesus. Perhaps now more Christians will tend to use “we” more in reference to the church than our country.

6.    Three words: universal health care. I know there are no solutions to the “health care problem.” I know there are many who don’t consider “health care” an inalienable right. I know there are many who believe that universal health care simply doesn’t work. As for the latter, I’m just not convinced. If anyone can make it work, it’s probably us. And let’s once again be honest – what we’re doing now isn’t working either. So this is one of the areas where the “change” rhetoric might actually mean something, one of the areas where I welcome (even imperfect) change. As for the rights question, I don’t even believe in inalienable rights (though I believe in something akin to them). If I did believe in basic human rights and was making a list of them, health care would be on that list. To me it is silly to say we value life without providing health care. Let’s not just get the babies born; let’s get them medical care. As for there being no simple solutions, I completely agree. But since this is true with any health care policy, at least for now I am in favor of seeking to universalize it to some degree. I admit, however, that I don’t know enough about this issue, so forgive me if I am inadequately informed.

7.    I agree with more of Obama’s policies on less crucial but still important issues. Like gun control, for instance, or immigration. I don’t know a great deal about these issues and they honestly didn’t factor much into my decision, so I won’t say much. I suppose it’s possible I could change my mind on the immigration issue as I learn more about it, but it’s unlikely. Less likely still would be a change on gun control restrictions, though Obama won’t likely be able to do much about it. I know people kill people, but the fact is that guns make it easier, and I’m all for making it harder to kill people. Ooh, I almost forgot about the environment. Once again, this wasn’t a deal-maker for me since from what I can tell both candidates want to be wiser about the harmful effects of human pollution, but I certainly favor pro-creation policies (regardless of whether “global warming” is real).

8.    Obama models the family values many of his opponents preach about. This point shouldn’t be lost, if we’re seeking to be fair and all. The Right often talks about family values, and about how strong families form the backbone of a stable society. If that’s the case, then Obama is clearly our candidate, at least in terms of putting our money where our mouths are., Though I in no way want to villainize him or act as if I understand all the factors involved, and while I recognize that people make mistakes and we have to leave room for growth and maturity, McCain has a checkered family history. On the other hand, Obama has been faithful to Michelle and so far as I can tell, they have done a good job loving and raising their two little girls. Because much has been made of Obama’s “questionable character” (usually in regard to certain of his associations with other people), I think this point deserves a little due. Not a lot, but a little. Obama is a family man, and for what it’s worth, he models for us all what a strong family looks like, more so than his opponent.

Why I did so with serious hesitation:

1.    I don’t fully trust Barack Obama. Please don’t misunderstand me; I do not believe any of the dramatic accusations against him. I don’t believe he’s a Muslim, a terrorist, or any such thing. I wouldn’t trust any candidate, and I am especially suspicious of those who consider themselves Christians (see below). When I say that I don’t trust him, I have two things in mind. First, I don’t fully trust that his policies will reduce abortions. I hope they will. But I fear his voting record, misconstrued as it sometimes tends to be. Second, he’s a little too smooth. I’m not saying this is a good reason, but I’ve always thought that someone as good as Obama at looking good and talking well is dangerous because he tends to win people’s faith apart from any meaningful content.

2.    Obama claims to be a Christian. I’m not going to say whether he is or not; thankfully, that’s not my (or your) call. I am confident that if he is a follower of Jesus, he’s got a lot to learn. I think he has an idolatrous view of America and America’s role in the world, and a heretical view of the American people. Being a pacifist, I am of course uncomfortable with his pro-war rhetoric in regard to Afghanistan in particular. I do not expect Obama to be a pacifist; if he were one, we wouldn’t we talking about him. But I nevertheless cannot disregard this conviction in my evaluation of him.

3.    Oprah loves Obama. I’m not a big Oprah fan. At all. I think she is one of the primary priests for an alternative religion to Christianity. I don’t know what to call it: “Americanism” is unfair; “Materialism” is too broad; “Consumerism” is too specific; “Liberalism” is too vague; “Secularism” is too confusing. So I don’t know what to call it, but it is the primary religious alternative in our world, and she represents one of its two main forms. And she loves Obama. This makes me nervous, seeing as how I see my task as a pastor to save people from her religious propaganda and the religion she represents. (In this context “Oprah” represents the whole mainstream media in my mind. I picked on her because they kept showing her crying during Obama’s victory speech.)

4.    People put way too much faith in Obama. My goodness people, do we honestly think this one man can be and do all of the things he’s promising. Let’s be real. Let’s be sober. Let’s not be so blatantly idolatrous. I fear that an Obama victory, though it may hopefully shake many Christians free from devotion to the religious Right, will merely replace this fervor with equal passion for the presently-being-formed religious Left. Capitol Hill will never provide the world – or this country – with a savior. This has been covered well elsewhere, so I won’t go on. For starters, read Isaiah 40 – nations aren’t nearly as important as we think! This type of overblown faith is generally true with all Presidents, but seems especially so with this one.

5.    Most people in my church would not like the way I voted. This matters. It really does. But not enough, or so I apparently think, to seal the deal. It really does hurt my heart that I had to go against so many of the people with whom I live and among whom I try to love. I hope and pray that this won’t cause division or lessen their respect for me. I respect those who disagree with me, and I hope they will return the favor.

6.    Since Obama was so likely to win (especially in my state), a McCain vote would have protected me from being held accountable for my vote in any substantial way. I don’t know to whom or to what degree we’re held accountable for the actions and policies of those for whom we vote. But the whole idea makes me uncomfortable, so it would be very easy for me to vote for the likely loser, so that (a) people couldn’t yell at me for not voting, and (b) people couldn’t yell at me for voting for the then president whose policies we might end up hating.

7.    I don’t think McCain would have been as bad as most people think. Sorry if that annoys some people. But I think the McCain-is-just-another-Bush rhetoric is grossly overstated. I know, I know, I’ve seen the commercial in which he proudly announces that he voted with Bush over 90% of the time. But the reality from his record is that he has been fairly centrist over the decades – not afraid to go against his conservative friends. I don’t think he would have been great or brought enough change to the areas where change is needed, or I would have voted for him. But I don’t think he would’ve been that bad. And now that we’ll never know, none of you can prove me wrong! ☺

A lot of common ones are missing, I suppose. I’ve said nothing about age on the one hand, or experience on the other; I never even mentioned Sarah Palin (or Colin Powell)! Nevertheless, these are my reasons. I didn’t say they’d all be good ones. And if you weigh the good reasons against the silly ones, you’ll probably see why I voted the way I did. I am not completely confident in my decision, for what it’s worth. Besides, in the end my vote didn’t really matter this time. (Sorry to be so un-PC, but it’s empirically true!) Obama would have won my state no matter how I voted, and Obama would have won overall no matter how my state voted. I’m not dogging voting (honestly!), but in this one instance my vote didn’t make much difference. But I still voted, and I thought I might as well submit to all of you why I voted the way I did.

…

Welcome to my new blog on American history, culture, politics, and propaganda. I am a beginner in the study of these things, and I have created this blog as an outlet for my ongoing explorations of what it means to call America home. I love this country and because of that love, I always seek to know and tell the truth about it. This means I am often quite critical of the dominant interpretation of what “America” is and represents. I am a follower of Jesus, who was crucified by the sole superpower of his day, so I am by definition critical of power, especially when it monopolizes the “justified” use of violence. If you want to know more about the blog, click the “About” tab at the top of the page. I’m glad you stopped by, and I do hope you’ll participate. Shalom!

Max

…