Jesus’ doctrines were the practical commandments, the truly radical ideas that immediately leap out in the simple stories he told and which he exemplified in everything he did. Not simply love one another, but love your enemy and forgive those who harm you; give up all material wealth; love the ineffable Being behind all things, and know that this Being is actually your truest Father, in whose image you were made. Above all: give up power over others, because power, if it is to be effective, ultimately requires the threat of violence, and violence is incompatible with the total acceptance and love of all other human beings that is at the sacred heart of Jesus’ teaching. That’s why, in his final apolitical act, Jesus never defended his innocence at trial, never resisted his crucifixion, and even turned to those nailing his hands to the wood on the cross and forgave them, and loved them.I recommend reading the whole thing. And hopefully soon I'll have my own thoughts posted.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Religion by Sullivan
I want to write more about religion - both about my own faith but also how religion intersects with politics. But while you wait for those posts, I suggest you read Andrew Sullivan's article in Newsweek. It is really good. Here is a quote:
Ryan is a Fraud
Though I love Paul Krugman's economics, I often find his partisan writings a bit too harsh for me. And so I try to be more reasonable and objective. And yet, I also find that I agree with him, at least recently. And never more so than on Paul Ryan.
While many in the media are tripping over themselves to say that Paul Ryan is brave and reasonable, his latest budget shows that he is neither of those things.
Let's start with brave. While he deserves a tiny bit of credit for actually laying out a plan, it is far less brave and transparent than we are led to believe. Ezra Klein has some pretty good summaries of it, and the short of it is that the budget preserves defense spending and social security, cuts taxes for the rich, and slashes discretionary programs, most of which go to the poor.
All of that together makes it clear this is not brave. It is a political document that has all of the popular things in there - tax cuts, no cuts to military, and protecting social security - while leaving out anything unpopular, like how to pay for the tax cuts. He says he will eliminate tax deductions, but doesn't say which ones, because they would all be unpopular. If he really was brave, he would say in there that he is eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction and child tax deduction and all of the other benefits that are popular as individual items. But he is not brave, so he leaves it out.
His budget is also not reasonable. In order to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy and for leaving military unharmed, he is going to gut discretionary programs, much of which goes to help the poor and middle class. Again, he doesn't say which programs he will have to cut (because that would be unpopular) but because of the scale, we know it will hit most programs, or if it leaves some harmless, it will be even deeper in others.
I might be able to handle all of this, if he wasn't so pious and dishonest about his budget. Here is what he said about how his budget treats the poor:
Ryan in the past gave a speech on how he believes in equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. That be accused Obama of believing in the later is utterly dishonest. But he doesn't actually believe in the former himself. Now, he doesn't really want equality of opportunity, but a base level of opportunity that we can all be comfortable with (otherwise, no one would be allowed private education). But his budgets show that he doesn't even believe in that. He does everything he can to kill programs that would allow all people to have a decent education, decent job training, etc - in other words, he kills programs that would work to create an even playing field.
Paul Ryan has a callous attitude about poverty. But so do many others. That he thinks and says he is actually being helpful is disgusting. That the press lets him get away with this, and pretends that he is being genuine and not honest is shameful. Paul Ryan is not a policy wonk. He is a politician that will say whatever he can get away with. And his policies do not help the poor or create an even playing field. More people should acknowledge this.
While many in the media are tripping over themselves to say that Paul Ryan is brave and reasonable, his latest budget shows that he is neither of those things.
Let's start with brave. While he deserves a tiny bit of credit for actually laying out a plan, it is far less brave and transparent than we are led to believe. Ezra Klein has some pretty good summaries of it, and the short of it is that the budget preserves defense spending and social security, cuts taxes for the rich, and slashes discretionary programs, most of which go to the poor.
All of that together makes it clear this is not brave. It is a political document that has all of the popular things in there - tax cuts, no cuts to military, and protecting social security - while leaving out anything unpopular, like how to pay for the tax cuts. He says he will eliminate tax deductions, but doesn't say which ones, because they would all be unpopular. If he really was brave, he would say in there that he is eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction and child tax deduction and all of the other benefits that are popular as individual items. But he is not brave, so he leaves it out.
His budget is also not reasonable. In order to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy and for leaving military unharmed, he is going to gut discretionary programs, much of which goes to help the poor and middle class. Again, he doesn't say which programs he will have to cut (because that would be unpopular) but because of the scale, we know it will hit most programs, or if it leaves some harmless, it will be even deeper in others.
I might be able to handle all of this, if he wasn't so pious and dishonest about his budget. Here is what he said about how his budget treats the poor:
[T]he preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life, help people get out of poverty out onto life of independence.If his budget only cut cash assistance (welfare) but increased spending on education, Pell grants, job training, etc, I would disagree with that as policy, but his argument would be at least defensible. Instead, his budget cuts taxes for the rich and in return, will have to cut all programs that would actually help people escape poverty.
Ryan in the past gave a speech on how he believes in equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. That be accused Obama of believing in the later is utterly dishonest. But he doesn't actually believe in the former himself. Now, he doesn't really want equality of opportunity, but a base level of opportunity that we can all be comfortable with (otherwise, no one would be allowed private education). But his budgets show that he doesn't even believe in that. He does everything he can to kill programs that would allow all people to have a decent education, decent job training, etc - in other words, he kills programs that would work to create an even playing field.
Paul Ryan has a callous attitude about poverty. But so do many others. That he thinks and says he is actually being helpful is disgusting. That the press lets him get away with this, and pretends that he is being genuine and not honest is shameful. Paul Ryan is not a policy wonk. He is a politician that will say whatever he can get away with. And his policies do not help the poor or create an even playing field. More people should acknowledge this.
They Have Chosen
Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. I think we all assumed this would be the case, but there were moment when it was unclear and it was possible that someone as crazy as Santorum, Perry, or Gingirch might have won (Bachmann and Cain even had their moments).
So what does this mean? I like this quote from Peggy Nonnan, a moderate conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, describing Romney:
As for the campaign though, I have to say I am not worried about him as a candidate. That he couldn't dispose of such a weak field is meaningful, despite his huge advantages in money, endorsements, and staff support. This doesn't mean he cannot win, it just means that it would take very favorable circumstances to do so (like a stalled or double-dip recession).
I will say though he has a very interesting strategy as a candidate to deal with one of his weaknesses - low favorability ratings. He has a kind of jiu-jitsu strategy where he accuses his opponents of the things they are accusing him of. And it does seem to throw them off-stride.
He managed in a debate to accuse Santorum of not being sufficiently conservative - attacking him for his vote on No Child Left Behind. That Santorum fell for it and made some lame excuse showed that it worked. He is doing the same thing to Obama - accusing him of being a Harvard elite, despite that Romney has two degrees from the university. And in light of anti-woman legislation like the transvaginal ultrasound, Romney is trotting out disingenuous numbers about job losses for women in the Obama presidency to accuse him of being anti-woman.
The fact is that this probably works. It brings the candidates down to his level. He is basically saying, "if you think I am ________, my opponent is just as bad." It worked well enough in the primary. We'll see if the voters get tired or if Obama is a better candidate and able to avoid it.
The final thing I will say, is that I just really don't like Romney. I can't find a moment when he is being genuine, in his attacks or in talking about his vision. His attacks on Obama are false - especially on foreign policy (where Obama is pretty conservative) and the economy. And when he talks about his vision, it is vague or noncommittal.
I know that most politicians are like this to some extent. Obama has said and will say some ridiculous things - and his surrogates will be even worse. And maybe I am not objective, though I do try to be. I just can't help but feel though that Romney is worse in this respect than anyone else.
Romney is not principled, like McCain tried to be. And he will try to bring everyone down with him. After all, if people don't like him, the only thing to do is make the people not like his opponent as well.
I have a feeling that I am going to find this campaign to be painful to watch. Maybe Obama can take more of the high ground, but I doubt it. I will probably long for the days of the somewhat reasonable McCain v. Obama. I can handle painful though, so long as Obama still wins.
So what does this mean? I like this quote from Peggy Nonnan, a moderate conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, describing Romney:
We learned Mitt Romney is not a greatly improved candidate from four years ago. He has endurance and discipline: He wants this thing. The reason why is still not fully clear. His political instincts and sense of subject matter are not much better than they were in 2008. The awkwardness continues.I think this is all true. More than other politicians, his views seem to move to whatever will get him elected. The question is if he wins, will we get the current far-right Romney, or the Massachusetts moderate Romney. My guess is that we'll get the far-right version; the base will always be watching him and so he will always have to show if loyalty.
As for the campaign though, I have to say I am not worried about him as a candidate. That he couldn't dispose of such a weak field is meaningful, despite his huge advantages in money, endorsements, and staff support. This doesn't mean he cannot win, it just means that it would take very favorable circumstances to do so (like a stalled or double-dip recession).
I will say though he has a very interesting strategy as a candidate to deal with one of his weaknesses - low favorability ratings. He has a kind of jiu-jitsu strategy where he accuses his opponents of the things they are accusing him of. And it does seem to throw them off-stride.
He managed in a debate to accuse Santorum of not being sufficiently conservative - attacking him for his vote on No Child Left Behind. That Santorum fell for it and made some lame excuse showed that it worked. He is doing the same thing to Obama - accusing him of being a Harvard elite, despite that Romney has two degrees from the university. And in light of anti-woman legislation like the transvaginal ultrasound, Romney is trotting out disingenuous numbers about job losses for women in the Obama presidency to accuse him of being anti-woman.
The fact is that this probably works. It brings the candidates down to his level. He is basically saying, "if you think I am ________, my opponent is just as bad." It worked well enough in the primary. We'll see if the voters get tired or if Obama is a better candidate and able to avoid it.
The final thing I will say, is that I just really don't like Romney. I can't find a moment when he is being genuine, in his attacks or in talking about his vision. His attacks on Obama are false - especially on foreign policy (where Obama is pretty conservative) and the economy. And when he talks about his vision, it is vague or noncommittal.
I know that most politicians are like this to some extent. Obama has said and will say some ridiculous things - and his surrogates will be even worse. And maybe I am not objective, though I do try to be. I just can't help but feel though that Romney is worse in this respect than anyone else.
Romney is not principled, like McCain tried to be. And he will try to bring everyone down with him. After all, if people don't like him, the only thing to do is make the people not like his opponent as well.
I have a feeling that I am going to find this campaign to be painful to watch. Maybe Obama can take more of the high ground, but I doubt it. I will probably long for the days of the somewhat reasonable McCain v. Obama. I can handle painful though, so long as Obama still wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)