picture originally uploaded by vaXzine

I hesitate to ever comment on foreign policy because I readily acknowledge my ignorance of international relations. Of course, from the looks of the last 50 years, I’d suggest many folks in government have also lacked finesse in foreign policy. I yield to the insight and expertise of friends like Charles Strohmer who have focused extensive time and analysis from a “wisdom perspective” into the challenges of foreign relations. With that disclaimer aside, I thought I’d foolishly venture into this space and something that has been on my mind over the last few days as I’ve watched President Obama interact with Chavez et al.

Could it be that Obama is modelling a cruciform foreign policy? What do I mean by cruciform? I am talking about a foreign policy in the shape of the cross (at least to some limited extent). I don’t know that Christ calls nations and national leaders to replicate his Golgatha journey, but I do think Jesus reveals the hidden wisdom of God that can guide many human relations. In Philippians 2, Paul argues that Jesus freely exchanges his position in the Godhead to take the position of man and a cursed man at that.

Jesus reveals the way true kingship works. The true king lays down his life for the nation. (Think legend of Holy Grail.) The only one who can give power is the one who possesses true power. So only God in Christ can come to the cross on behalf of his enemies (sinful humanity). Paul calls for God’s children to model this same power giving attitude in their relationships with one another. Now I am not suggesting the Scripture indicates that this is a model for relationships between nations, but what if? What if a nation possessing virtually ultimate power, could operate in humility and “limited” deference.

I am not suggesting that we turn a blind eye to enemies or even invite terrorists to the “table” as equals. But I am suggesting that there may be room for a model of foreign policy that turns “realpolitik” on its head. Right now the United States has a power unequaled by any one nation. While some continue to prophecy our demise, what if our power is not decreasing but could actually be increasing for the foreseeable future? Could we model a behavior and a foreign policy that does not have to prove it’s power. We have it and can use if and when needed. As a result, we can also humble ourselves and engage other countries in a “wisdom” way that might open doors for renewed friendships and even transformation of some enemies to friends.

I am not a pacifist and am not suggesting the nation lay down and give in to all the demands of other nations. But we might rethink how we listen, we might respond in wisdom ways that look to tomorrow as well as to the next 50 years. We might be willing to make a few compromises in the short term for long term rewards.

Jesus embraced the cross for the joy set before him. Is there a way a nation can embrace the cross? I don’t know, but sometimes I wonder.

Popularity: 11% [?]

picture originally uploaded by kjd

Yesterday I listened to a lecture from the Teaching Company on The History of the United States specifically about the period directly following the signing of the Constitution. Professor Guelzo tells the story of how the framers of the Constitution never anticipated political parties, and if they had, they might have outlawed them in the Constitution.

Parties were self-sustaining organizations that tended to collect power, money and corruption at top. If anything, they seemed to inhibit true political and positive engagement in England. Rejecting these long Whig and Tory controversies from English politics, early American politics was driven by caucuses. By caucuses I am talking about people who united around a cause or issue for a finite time period until the Congress addressed the issue or the organizer died or quit. The Congress was made up of representatives from each region but not connected to specific long-term political parties. Caucuses were temporary and were ways to address specific issues facing the newborn nation.

But Hamilton and his banker friends made the agrarians like Thomas Jefferson nervous. Serving as Geroge Washington’s Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton supported fiscal and foreign policy goals at odd with the agrarians. He used his power to push laws through Congress. Concerned by actions and policies of Hamilton, Jefferson and friends begin to form groups of Republican Democrats against the policies of Hamilton and the Federalists. These groups organized into parties, and soon Hamilton responded by organizing a Federalist party.

Of course, the party system quickly devolved into the self-sustaining organization that our founders would have preferred to avoid. As I thought about this shift, I thought about the various points in our history when an “issue” has started out as a “caucus” but over time devolved into a “party organization.” Once that happens, I would suggest it is not in the interest of the party to truly resolve the “issue” because sustaining the life of the part has become more important than the issue. I will let my readers think of their own issue-party groups (and I think they’re are all over Washington).

As I discussed this idea this morning with another minister, he pointed out that the church often does the same thing. What starts out as a caucus of people connected by an encounter with the Lord often turns into a self-sustaining organization that may even “at times” oppose the move of God in the interest of preserving the organization. Something to think about.

Popularity: 10% [?]

I wonder if a “political science” degree might be more helpful than some of the MBAs I’ve encountered. I know some MBA programs connect and support Drucker’s original vision of how business play an integrating role of social stability. But many MBAs seem to be nothing more than glorified Excel degrees.

Political science is the study of the art and science of the body politic. I think many businesses function much like a body politic. They deal with issues of governance, war (internal and external), human relations, social stability, and so on. Plus, their decisions often have ramifications that reach far beyond the business.

If you think about businesses, you might also see that some are run more like a democracy (some like a rambunctious Athenian democracy), some are totalitarian tyrannies, some some are republics and so on.

I wonder if have some sernior executive with a political science background might helpful bring a helpful accentuation into the managing and visioning process.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Did Obama’s VP advisor Jack Johnson fall victim to a fashion faux paus? I don’t think so, but the NYT headline begs for a story on fashion crimes:

Obama Aide Quits Under Fire for His Business Ties

Of course from the picture above, his business tie does look pretty bland.

Popularity: 2% [?]

People like to make Jesus the spokesman for their cause. From politics to health care to environmental concerns, I’ve seen his visage commondeered for unending causes. Many of these causes may be just and good and we should do them. But if you’re looing for Jesus, he often shows up in disrespectable settings.

Popularity: 3% [?]

David Williamson pointed me toward a podcast of NT Wright singing “Blowin’ in the Wind” as well as talking about Christianity, politics, and the role of faith in action. This podcast was from an empireremixed conference held in Toronto.

Popularity: 3% [?]

While trying to find out some words related to treasure chest, I stumbled across an old Catholic comic book series and eventually ended up at the Authentic American History Center. This site provides a fascinating collection of American pop culture artifacts that reach all the way back to the revolution.

There are pamphlets, comics, images and audio files from the Revolutionary War, Civil War, early 1900s, WWI, WWII, and each decade up to the present. The topic range from religion to politics to other elements that captured the national  consciousness.

Way cool! Plus the Catholic comic book Treasure Chest was pretty interesting as well.

Popularity: 2% [?]

The Merton Center for Contemplation sent out this wonderful quote today that fits perfect for our political frenzy.

“Meditation does not necessarily give us a privileged insight into the meaning of isolated historical events. These can remain for the Christian as much of an agonizing mystery as they do for anyone else. But for us the mystery contains, within its own darkness and its own silences, a presence and a meaning which we apprehend without fully understanding them. And by this spiritual contact, this act of faith, we are ourselves properly situated in the events around us, even though we may not quite see where they are going.

One thing is certain: the humility of faith, if it is followed by the proper consequences—by the acceptance of the work and sacrifice demanded by our providential task—will do far more to launch us into the full current of historical reality than the pompous rationalizations of politicians who think they are somehow the directors and manipulators of history. Politicians may indeed make history, but the meaning of what they are making turns out, inexorably, to have been something in a language they will never understand, which contradicts their own programs and turns all their achievements into an absurd parody of their promises and ideals.

Of course, it is true that religion on a superficial level, religion that is untrue to itself and God, easily comes to serve as the “opium of the people.” And this takes place whenever religion and prayer invoke the name of God for reasons and ends that have nothing to do with Him. When religion becomes a mere artificial façade to justify a social or economic system—when religion hands over its rites and language completely to the political propagandist, and when prayer becomes the vehicle for a purely secular ideological program, then religion does tend to become an opiate. It deadens the spirit enough to permit the substitution of a superficial fiction and mythology for the truth of life. And this brings about the alienation of the believer, so that his religious zeal becomes political fanaticism. His faith in God, while preserving its traditional formulas, becomes in fact faith in his own nation, class or race. His ethic ceases to be the law of God and love, and becomes the law of might-makes-right:  established privilege justifies everything. God is the status quo.”
- Thomas Merton

From Contemplative Prayer. New York: Doubleday, 1996 edition

Popularity: 1% [?]

Pajamas Media has been running a contest to name the vast ocean of Americans who do not identify with the far right, far left, liberal, conservative or even moderate labels. After a rigorous voting process, the results are in…Freerangers!

Popularity: 1% [?]

In his 4th quarter Public Justice Report, James Skillen suggests that regardless of who wins what seats in the upcoming election little will probably change in Washington. First, he suggest voter apathy is high because “most voters seem to be aware that lobbyists have more power than they do, and that their vote won’t matter much. Many have also concluded that major problems won’t be solved by Washington, regardless of who wins election.”

Our current system is ill-equipped to solve the continuing stagnation in Washington politics, and Skillen believes that even the emergence of independents and third parties can do little to change the current atmosphere.

The problem? He suggests that our country desperately needs a system that represents the national interests because we are a nationwide community of citizens whose collective actions can have dramatic impact upon our culture and our world. Unfortunately, the system we have (and even independent and 3rd party groups) will not represent national interests but special interests groups. He proposes a focusing on building national parties:

What we need is something much more significant than election-campaign finance reform, or lobbying reform, or the growth of independent voters and representatives. We need a fundamental change in the electoral system that will help to produce national parties that are truly competitive and whose elected representatives will be answerable to party members and voters rather than to lobbyists. We need a system change that will lead to the representation of the real diversity of American voters in Congress and that will, thereby, draw voters out of their apathy into participation in elections and politics. We need 75 percent or more of voters to vote instead of 50 percent or less.

He continues with a proposal to change the way we elect representatives from focusing on districts to electing parties:

If each state eliminated all congressional districts and allowed any number of political parties (not only two) each to field a number of statewide candidates corresponding to the number of House seats to which the state is entitled, voters could then caste their votes for the party they really believed in. No votes would be lost as happens in a simple majority system. When the votes were tallied, each party would gain as many House seats as its percentage of the statewide vote entitled it, no more, no less. If the Republicans got 40 percent of the vote, they would win 40 percent of the seats. If the Democrats got 40 percent of the votes, they would win 40 percent of the seats. If the Libertarian Party, or Green Party, or Conservative Party won five percent of the vote, it would win five percent of the seats. If a Public Justice Party won 10 percent of the votes, it would win 10 percent of the seats.

Not only would such a system allow the diversity of American voters some real choices for a change, it would also compel parties in different states that share common principles and platforms to work together to build a national party. If all Republicans, or all Greens, or all Libertarians across the country did not bind themselves in a tight agreement about what they would aim to achieve when their elected representatives arrived in Washington, they would have no coalition of forces in Congress. This process would begin to force the emergence of truly national parties with national agendas. These parties would also have to decide ahead of time (and make public) which interest groups were supporting them and on what terms they would take those interest groups into account in their legislating. Voters would then be able to decide which party to support and would be able to help shape an overarching agenda for the party whose elected representatives would remain more accountable to its members and voters than to the interest groups.

Skillen believes this solution would do away with gerrymandering and hold officials to a greater level of accountability to national interests.

I still have to process Skillen’s proposal, but I am interested in the way he tackles the problems in Washington by suggesting it is a systems problem not simply a personnel problem. If anything, this could open a conversation about different ways to think about our current system; although I think most people would fear any tampering or changes to our current system.

Popularity: 1% [?]