Skip to main content
I've been something of a fan of President Obama since he appeared on the scene in 2004. I heard the convention address that made him a star in 2004 (and was deeply moved, I must say). I predicted his election in 2006, after hearing a speech he gave to the Save Darfur rally in Washington, DC that spring. Right-wingers (and I am one, in many respects) scoff at his alleged soaring rhetoric and meteoric rise. And he should rightly receive mountains of criticism for his anti-life policies regarding abortion, his nationalizing economic policies that stunt growth, and his amateurish dealings with the opposition and its ideas, such as they are. But those who do not respect the events of his election, who mock his supporters as unthinking idiots, who behave as though the country is a gulag in which we are all trapped (understanding that the logical end of many Obama policies/ideas is exactly that) are not only irritating, but they demonstrate a lack of understanding in how American politics works. As my old teacher Rick Hardy told me when noting that the academic discipline in which we were both engaged (let the reader understand) was misnamed, "Politics is an art, not a science." Obama was a master artist in 2008; he got a little lucky, he had bad opposition (of course, that opposition was selected largely by members of the opposition party) and he has a great story, which he used to great effect. And this piece is substantially true, if a little inoffensive and basic. Yet one of the most significant points of data in this story is Obama's undiminished standing among black Americans (north of 90 percent). And I would caution some of us in using certain metaphors to describe black loyalty to the Democratic party (though I encourage and do not denounce black conservatives for doing so). And I would describe most policies embraced by the Democratic Party in the US as counterproductive and actively harmful to race relations and the good of the nation in general. But, if you or I were black, could anyone blame us for feeling intense loyalty to the president as a symbol? No. Even on the worst day of the Obama administration, it is inarguably and irrevocably historic. Heck, I'm white, and I hate criticizing him. [You just say that because you're one of the idiots who voted for him.--ed.]

[Totally New Separate Thought That Should Likely Have Been A Separate Post] True, admitting a mistake like this is a difficult thing. Still, I don't feel as though I could have done differently, given the understanding I had before me at the time. Christian leaders are justifiably hesitant to tell parishoners for whom to vote as a spiritual matter, but I will say that if I had been commanded one way or the other, I would have obeyed. Still, I do feel that conservative Catholics and other Christians who were exhorted to vote against Obama are in major danger of co-option and betrayal by those with whom they ally. However, I'm not muddle-headed enough to tell the Catholic Church or anyone else to "stay out of politics." That fascistic move is the first step in, well, fascism. The state is always in the business of silencing the Church when it, under the dominion of Satan, is engaged in evil. Stupid people who see the often close connection between theologically and morally conservative Christians and "conservative" political groups often make the equally vapid mistake of affirming their opposites out of some simplistic contrarianism. I need to say this: Jim Wallis, God bless him, is the epitome of this. He's not only infuriating most of the time, it's quite obvious he hasn't thought through most things with the intellectual rigor that's required. "Progressive" political theory and opinions are just plain factually incorrect, largely. And indefensible historically. And the problem for Christians of a more anticapitalist/redistributionist stripe becomes this: When the state acquires the requisite power to reach its economic goals, certainly becoming tyrannical in the process, what will you do? Politically conservative American Christians already face dissonance when their favored choices support the death penalty, foolish and deadly wars, and betray them on abortion and other bioethical issues. And while capitalism presents unique challenges and temptations, it does not, contra some, lead inevitably to nearly irreversible sin and evil.
[Back to Advice/Final Thoughts On Race and Obama] If you hang around American conservatives enough, you'll hear Obama described on the kind end of things as the "Affirmative Action President" and other such things. And while he may be out of his depth, and he may have benefitted from a certain lack of scrutiny partly due to his race, we have to be really careful in how we express these things. The Republican Party deserves not only more historical credit for its willingness to combat anti-black discrimination, but its members deserve the good-faith assumption that they are not racist, despite the brilliant and immoral job Democrats have done painting Republicans and their ideas as racist. However, because most of the party is white, the attitude Republicans often use in mocking Democrats and their policy inanities in regard to race (which, granted, they richly deserve) is, at best, tone-deaf. Racism still exists, and most of us are unaware of its continuing pervasive impact. In short, the GOP will not eat into black (and other non-whites) support for Democrats until we frame our ideas through black (and brown, etc.) eyes, with an acute sensitivity to our continuing lack of awareness (which should continue to dissipate with time). We can't yet say, "We pick the best person, without regard to race" and brush the argument aside, because we do not live in a colorblind nation, despite our aspirations. All other things being equal, in fact, the GOP should prefer representatives of color to white ones. For now, we should play the cynic's game right along with the Dems, until we reach our goal(s). The GOP needs to be more active in recruiting minority candidates; they need to stop favoring the creation of "majority minority" congressional districts if they still do (too much like the tactics used in the South to dilute voting strength in the past); they need to get younger (my generation is much more aware of the nuances here, and powerfully committed to a post-racial vision). Finally though, are you ready and willing to accept that a significant, indeed massive amount of historical revisionism will take place regarding Obama--no matter what happens--especially in the hearts and minds of black Americans? In short, can you deal if Obama goes down a hero? Like Lincoln, Kennedy, FDR, and Reagan? This is actually very likely to occur. And like the men in this brief list, it will largely be undeserved when it occurs. But I guarantee you: our first black Republican president will have Obama to thank, and will happily do so.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un