New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Since the “Yes, We Can” music video has become somewhat of an internet hit at DipDive, Will.I.Am has chartered a new video called “We Are The Ones,” which to me appears to be even more inane and idolizing than the first. Whenever I discuss with others how bizarre these videos are, they make point to mention that they are not sanctioned by the Obama campaign as if that absolves him. But, actually, the fact that the video was not his campaign’s doing is perhaps even more frightening than otherwise. Powerful politicians are supposed to have their own heroic self-image, but when others start buying into their messianic self-regard is when it ceases to be cute and becomes, instead, just frightening. For when voters begin viewing any public figure as transcendent, it gives them free reign to as they wish politically, with less and less opposition.

You can see the video by clicking the link below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 44% [?]

Peggy Noonan writes:

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.

It was very gratifying to read this from Ms Noonan. Remember, she’s hardly one of the faithless either. She is a devout catholic, biographer of Pope John Paul II, and was a top Reagan aid and speechwriter–a consistent conservative, by all means.

To recap, Romney’s speech played out very well and it looks to be a political success. First, he looked very presidential, and, second he sent a positive message to American Evangelicals, among others. His basic message: candidates should not be judged on personal religious denominations, but rather on their underlying faith. Of course, this implicates secularists as well as the 1 out of 10 Americans who doubt God’s existence.

The obvious political goal is to juxtapose his piety versus the impiety of assorted secularists instead of his Mormonism versus traditional American Christianity. It is cunning politics, but it is exploitative. Under the facade of religious accommodation, Romney is simply trying to divert the conflict. Despite the fact that the speech has been compared to JFK’s of 1960, Romney is no JFK. Kennedy was the most ardent believer in separation of church and state as well as separation of church and politics while Romney is trying to court the religious right on their moral terms.

David Brooks writes in the NYT:

From Neuhaus, Romney borrowed the conviction that faith is under assault in America — which is the unifying glue of social conservatism. He argued that the religious have a common enemy: the counter-religion of secularism.

He insisted that the faithful should stick stubbornly to their religions, as he himself sticks to the faith of his fathers. He insisted that God-talk should remain a vibrant force in the public square and that judges should be guided by the foundations of their faith. He lamented the faithlessness of Europe and linked the pro-life movement to abolition and civil rights, just as evangelicals do.

In his speech he recounted Sam Adams call for faith among the founders in time of crisis. However, many of the founders not only framed this nation in the image of a secular state but also questioned the existence of God out-right. There was no Christian consensus among the founders, many were probably not even Christian. James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson were probably among these men. The third president, for instance:

“Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you” (Jefferson’s Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).

In 1797, the US Senate unanimously ratified the Treaty of Trippoli, which addresses the non-religious nature of America bluntly:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The fact of the matter is that non-believers are a part of the American family, Mitt Romney’s speech notwithstanding. Secularists have made significant contributions to America from the beginning, and as they were treated on the merits of their reason and platforms from the time of Jefferson, they should be still today.

ADDENDUM: Zach has recently shown me a story in which a Romney spokesperson will not say whether atheists are part of the American family.

Popularity: 34% [?]

Today is a good day to be a Romney supporter. Governor Romney gave what was without a doubt the most important and the most impressive speech by any candidate of the presidential campaign. With the national press listening, he spoke about not only his Mormon faith, but the role of religion and its importance in America.

I will not go into specifics of the speech because-well quite frankly I would not be able to say it as well as Governor Romney.

You can find the speech here on the Governor’s presidential website. It is also available on MSNBC’s homepage.

As for early reactions from the pundits, here are a few quotes from MSNBC’s post speech coverage.

Pat buchanan, “Beautiful, almost perfect.”

Chris Mathews, “After almost a year of this presidential campaign I have finally heard the most impressive speech in this race.”

Joe Scarborough, “A landmark speech on American religious identity, he did everything he had to and just hit it right out of the ballpark.”

Popularity: 36% [?]

The story about has been in the news a couple of days now. A British woman teaching in Sudan has been arrested for naming her class’ teddy bear “Muhammad,” which constitutes degradation of the prophet (at least according to the Sudanese government and many angry Muslims). From the AP:

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and swords and beating drums, burned pictures of a British teacher Friday and demanded her execution for insulting Islam by letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Many in the protesting crowd shouted “Kill her! Kill her by firing squad!”

…

Gibbons was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in jail and deportation for insulting Islam with the naming of the teddy bear, which was part of a class project for her 7-year-old students at the private school.

She escaped harsher punishment that could have included up to 40 lashes, six months in prison and a fine. Her time in jail since her arrest Sunday counts toward the sentence.

Most also believe that the government, which for its escapades in Darfur has received castigation from the west, is exploiting the incident insofar as it wishes to fuel anti-western sentiment among its people.

The article continued:

The 54-year-old Gibbons, who was sentenced to 15 days in jail, spoke Friday with her son John and daughter Jessica in Britain by telephone.

“One of the things my mum said today was that I don’t want any resentment towards Muslims,” the son told AP.

But why shouldn’t she hold resentment towards Muslims? For many of them and according to their religious scripture free expression must be compromised to make room for sharia law, and in this case outlawing depiction of the prophet or “degradation” of any part of the religion. Many Muslims would want to see her put to death, at least imprisoned, for her benign actions, why should the teacher turn the other cheek? She shouldn’t. She should stick up for herself, just like the west should stick up for itself in the face of such controversies as the Danish cartoon incident among others.

This comes in light of new “youth” riots outside of Paris, which, like the more widespread riots of a year ago, the media mostly forgets to mention predominantly feature the wrath of one religion in particular.

Popularity: 33% [?]

For those who have heard of Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, one of the first things they utter is, “Oh yea, isn’t that the Mormon guy?” Indeed, there was a major perception in the main stream media that Governor Romney would face serious obstacles in his quest for the Oval Office because of his religious beliefs. One of the reasons behind this is that polls show that more Americans’ would be willing to vote for a woman or an African-American than a Mormon. American’s should not vote for Hillary Clinton if she says that her gender will effect her decision making and policy, they should not support Obama if he claims that the color of his skin will alter his approach on issues, and they should not vote for Mitt Romney if he claims that the Church of Latter Day Saints will be driving his decision making. Yet, none of these candidates should be penalized for their personal characteristics as long as they will not influence their policies in the White House. If we do as Ryan proposes and analyze the faith of our candidates even more than we do now, then what is to stop us from lambasting public officials based on their race or gender?
Most people who are opposed to a Mormon politician claim that the religion is simply too odd or too strange, others’, such as Ryan observe the Church’s former policies of sexual and racial discrimination. It is true that blacks’ were not allowed to become members of the Mormon church until 1978 and it is also true that even today there is not a single woman that holds a high position within the LDS. Despite past policies of the Church, Ryan forgets to look at political history.

Michigan Governor George Romney, was one of first Governors in the country to support civil rights legislation. In 1962, Governor George Romney wrote the provision for the nation’s only constitutionally established Civil Rights Commission. There is no question that the Romney’s do believe in their faith and follow the teachings of their Church, but George Romney’s actions as a civil rights pioneer nearly two decades before his Church endorsed civil rights shows that true politicians put their oath of office above anything else. Like the majority of politicians in America, faith did not drive the policy’s of George Romney. Ryan was correct when he wrote, “the politics of Gov. Romney are not determined by the Mormonism of Mitt Romney,” yet he seemed to take this as an exception, when he should note that like Romney’s father, most American politicians limit the influence (if any) their faith will have during their tenure in office.

It is imperative that religion does not heavily influence the political actions of our leaders. At the same time dismissing those beliefs is not only unlikely, but unadvisable. Ryan may want to examine Romney’s faith to ensure it does not poison society, but what is to stop evangelicals from examining the Catholic faith Ryan was born with? It is apparent what a slippery slope this could become, if we as a society begin to dismiss politicians based on their faith even if it will not influence their policy, then we will endanger the very foundations of American politics. For example, could one not question an Objectivist on his ability to remove Ayn Rand’s philosophy from his thought process if ever elected into office? Politicians should be judged on the policies that they have proposed. American’s should not weigh a candidates religion unless that person admits that it is or will be a significant influence upon their policy. The only candidate who has done so as of yet in this Presidential race is Mike Huckabee. Unless Senator Obama, or Governor Romney, or Senator Clinton says that their race, religion, or gender will influence them in office, then it is only fair that we solely examine their political record’s.

Popularity: 43% [?]

From the front page of the NYT:

Civil rights became an even more insistent issue, when boycotts and violent protests over the university’s virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games. The Mormon Church at the time excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as results of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. (During their training, a fellow missionary of Mr. Romney took notes that read: “All men were created equal — No,” followed by “Sons of Ham. ”)

This part of the bible not only kept LDS from permitting blacks in their church but it doubtlessly provided motivation for many Mormons to oppose the advancement of equality under law for blacks especially in the 1960s. The same bible story was used as a justification for slavery as late as the middle 19th century in America. Even as race relations improved it was not until 1978 that the Mormon Church opened admission for blacks.

Translate this to today as Mitt Romney runs for president. It appears that Romney is only experiencing minimal disadvantage because of his religion, which is a good sign. The reason for this is even better–the politics of Gov. Romney are not determined by the Mormonism of Mitt Romney. This brings me to a bigger point that it is not simply enough to have a seperation of church and state, but there also should be a separation of church and politics in that a politician’s religious dogma should not affect their political decision making.

Its not enough to prevent laws which discriminate based on personal belief systems from being passed. The first amendment cannot check legislation which is motivated by religion but does not explicitly mention any. Hence it is important to pay attention to the religious implication of our political candidates. So far it appears like Romney’s relatively plain politics are not altered by his relatively absurd religious beliefs, but if we do not maintain a watchful eye over all our public figures the injury we could incur from the poison of religious politics is immeasurable.

Popularity: 44% [?]

On the anniversary of 9/11, young muslim apostates are launching a campaign to make it easier for Muslims to leave Islam–which is considered an offense punishable by death according to Islamic literature. From The Times:

 The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack…

“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” Mr Jami said. “In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.”

The article’s afternote sites the Koran:

Sura 4: 88-89 reads: “Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.”

The scary thing is that Europe faces intimidation from Islam even if they do not have the same Islamist governments as in the Middle East. We saw this from the murder of Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh, from the massive riots and deaths from the Danish Cartoon controversy, from the (Muslim) youth riots in France, to many other instances. It demonstrates both the growing force of Islam across the world as well as Europe’s tolerance for it.

I do not really see how this amnesty movement for apostates however could work in the Muslim world. Where Sharia’a is present the teachings of the Koran are beyond question. I do however think that Mr. Jami’s campaign is valuable because it points out the danger of Islamic mysticism on a continent where criticizing the religion is politically incorrect (a crime punishable by social ostracizing). There is always a place for people to call out religion when it is used as a political tool; if nobody does so there is no stop to the havoc it can wreak.

Popularity: 72% [?]

From the AP:

Addressing a town-hall meeting in Iowa, the former New York mayor was asked whether he considered himself a “traditional, practicing Roman Catholic.” An audience member also called on Giuliani to discuss the role his faith played in making decisions on issues such as abortion.

“My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests,” Giuliani said. “That would be a much better way to discuss it. That’s a personal discussion and they have a much better sense of how good a Catholic I am or how bad a Catholic I am.”

In a political realm where religion is becoming increasingly important to voters, the fact that a major candidate is declining to inject his religious leanings into the debate is encouraging. The rise of religion in politics has greatly affected government, and its influence has become so immense that even the Democrats find themselves pandering to religious voters. Additionally, the rise of evangelical conservatism has corresponded with the rise of big government conservatism which has been a large contributor to the increase in the size of government since the ’80s (and especially under President Bush). It was exactly the religion factor that led Senator Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative himself, to become so disenchanted with the Republican Party in his later years.

The problems with religion in politics are manifold and those problems will persist whether or not we go to the particular extreme of establishing a state religion. However the root of those problems can be summed up in the fact that reason is always a better tool for solving such existential problems like issues of government policy that affect hundreds of millions–if not, billions–of people.

Quite frankly, I cannot understand anyone’s rationale for worrying about a candidate’s religious affiliation. Do voters such as the one in Iowa really think that God will favor America more if we elect a President of a certain denomination? The bottom line is that faith and politics make for a dangerous combo while secular politics have proven to result in far greater freedom over the course of history. It is a pleasure to see that at least one candidate for leader of the free world is not trying to prove that he (or she) is the “Jesus candidate”.   

Popularity: 41% [?]

The country’s largest voting bloc, the Christian Right, seems to be at a crossroads.  Generations have preached the importance of family values, such as the abolition of abortion.  They also have succeeded in forcing politicians to block the passage of gay marriage amendments.  While these are among the most minor of their activities, they are the most public.  As such, the country has a right to hold their activities in high regard.

Recently, it seems as if some of their leaders have had trouble adhering to the very same standards they preach about.  The Reverend Ted Haggard, once the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, was found soliciting homosexual favors from a male prostitute.  Several weeks later, Haggard announced he was “reformed” and ready to lead again, having attended a re-education camp of sorts to rid him of his homosexuality, exactly what he preached against.  The movie Jesus Camp does an amazing job detailing his activities, and the Evangelical/Christian Right movement. 

Today, however, they’re back in the spotlight as the President of the Christian Action League was found soliciting sex from a prostitute in his hometown.  While not nearly as public as Ted Haggard’s confession and public conviction, this still should be taken seriously.  If Evangelicals can’t even hit their own moral targets, how can they expect others to?  The story’s Newsvine thread contains some rather entertaining comments about Privette’s actions.  The fact that he paid the prostitute with a check won’t help his case both in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the public. 

Once again, however, this isn’t an isolated incident.  If incidents like these keep popping up, will the Christian Right lose trust in their leaders?  These breaches in moral policy represent a growing problem for the Religious Right, and it’s something they’re going to have to examine further down the road as the movement becomes more and more important to American politics. 

Popularity: 37% [?]

In the Wednesday Journal, Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, pointed out an illuminating fact in his op-ed, “Fatah Isn’t the Answer”:

Since its creation…the Palestinian Athority has gotten more aid per capita than any entity in modern history–more than Europe under the Marshal Plan.

He continues:

The lion’s share of this fortune has been siphoned into the prevate accounts of Fatah leaders or used to pay off the commanders of some 16 semi-autonomous militias. The PA also maintains an estimated 60,000 uniformed gunmen on its payroll giving the West Bank the world’s highest percentage of policemen-to-population.

The Palestinian people, meanwhile, languish in ever-deepening poverty and unemployment, while lawlessness plagues the Palestinian streets.

If this is how they run an administration with a small range of responsibilities, not to mention that they get more financial help than any athority in modern world history, why should they be given their own country?! And, why should we expect anything different than the status quo from Palestine if they are given their own country?

Popularity: 55% [?]