Today I made the mistake of turning the radio to something other than sports on my drive to work. I don’t know why I thought the sounds of NPR would be better for my soul than the Jim Rome Show, but I made the call and now I have to live with it.
True confessions: I lean Democrat on many issues these days. That has become my “default mode” for a number of reasons. But I don’t think Jesus is a Democrat. And I don’t think Jesus is any happier with my current persuasion than he was with my prior Republican default-mode.
True confession #2: I could vote for the right Obama challenger this fall. Obama fell far short of his promises to change the posture of America toward the world with respect to its militarism, for example.
But today there were two moments of radio listening that helped me pin down why I “feel” more at home with Democrats than with Republicans.
First, there was a piece on one of Newt Gingrich’s favorite stump trail lines, in which he accuses Obama of being “the food stamp president.”
I won’t mess around too much here with the fact that his claim is technically false: .5 million more people went on food stamps under Bush Jr. than Obama. But, really, if you’re only .5 million behind in 4 years, what do you think the numbers will be in 8? So this isn’t the part that rankles me. 
The part that rankles me is that the idea that people receiving assistance with food is somehow an object of scorn. People cheer when Gingrich lambasts the president for extending food stamp aid?
These are people who are at their wits end, turning to the last option available to them in order, often, to buy food for their children.
These are women in low- to moderate-paying jobs on maternity leave. They’ll have money when they go back to work. But what about now?
I can understand the argument that government feeding people isn’t the ideal way for folks in dire need to be cared for. But the reason so many are turning here is that those “better,” “ideal” means aren’t coming to pass.
Look, conservative Republican, Christian friends. I get that there’s a better way. And we should be living that out. But if you (and I) were actually fulfilling that better way, then food stamps would not be needed. If you’re grumpy about food stamps, then let’s all take away the need for them by caring for the poor without them.
The other story was the Superior Court upholding the lower court’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 in California, which took away the rights of gays and lesbians to marry.
Again, I can’t get on board with the ire expressed by Republicans (mostly) and Christians (hi, friends) that the extension of civil rights to all citizens is a great evil.
Yes, the people of California voted to strike down the law allowing homosexual couples to marry.
News flash: the majority has never willfully extended civil rights without the courts of this country telling Americans that the Constitution forbids us from carrying out our discriminatory practices.
Left to ourselves, we would still be a segregated country whose representatives were voted in by men.
Does this blog post have a point? Mostly that I’m getting soft in my old age, I guess. I don’t buy that the limitations the Republican candidates want to erect on such issues as these are manifestations of compassion. I think people are deserving of greater compassion than corporations, and that exercising compassion toward corporations does not benefit many people.
I think it’s a good thing for desperate people to be able to find food; I think it’s a good thing for a state not to be run on the basis of the kinds of religious predilections that limit the civil liberties of its citizens (even where those religious predilections are my own).
I probably allow too much “do unto others as you’d want done to you” to creep into my politics these days. And somehow that makes mocking the food stamp president strangely foreign to me.
As always, but let me state it especially clearly in a post on politics: the views expressed here are my own, and claim neither the imprimatur of my employer nor of Jesus.
On Gingrich v. the Food Stamp President…
I think you’ve made Gingrich’s point here. What’s so upsetting is that so many people are having to turn to welfare initiatives to get by. It’s a round-a-bout argument about the still sluggish economy and the still high unemployment rates.
I’m not necessarily opposed to food stamps, but I wish no one ever had to use them.
That doesn’t strike me as the connotation of Gingrich’s remarks. It seems to be more of a, “This money-out Democrat is creating a welfare state,” type remark. No?
The point I keep hearing is that there are too many people getting food stamps. But isn’t that what the program is for. And wouldn’t we expect there to be a lot of people added on to the program when we have a bad economy?
Obama has to take some responsibility for part of the economy (although no president can control the economy by fiat.) But food stamps are there to help to the poor, when they are lots of poor, there are lots of people using food stamps. Seems like a fairly simple point.
Which to me is why Gingrich is using it. Not to make an economic argument (he can make that much clearer in other ways) but to try to tar Obama with the negative ramifications of anti poverty programs. (And in my more cynical moments, I assume there is an intended racial issue that gets wrapped up in this as well.)
This recession has had me do a lot of thinking. This is the only time in American history that a recession hasn’t been accompanied by a huge spike in crime. The difference seems to be the availability of government assistance. I am still a conservative, but it is hard to argue with points like those made by Ron Sider about just how much cash churches would have to raise to feed everyone.
Look at how wisely this one speaks! Mixed marriages are apparently a route for the work of the Holy Spirit!
All kidding aside… Daniel, I can totally relate to your frustration with Obama. I consider Obama to stand for my general political position, but he doesn’t always follow through with things. On some of those issues, I have come to appreciate that Ron Paul wants similar things, and on the ones where we have obvious disagreements, I take comfort in the fact that Ron Paul at least believes we shouldn’t be ending entitlements NOW (since people depend on them) but should start balancing the budget, with decreased military spending instead. Of course many people also take comfort in the fact that Ron Paul won’t get elected, but I dunno… I feel like if he did, he would use veto power to minimize congressional bullshit and force bipartisan cooperation, and this would be a good thing. I may have a totally different idea about the role of the government in fixing social problems, but I’ve been surprised to see how much political common ground I actually have with Ron Paul. Further evidence of how marriage can help you see the other side of politics, I guess.
Still, it makes me very sad that Obama hasn’t kept his promises, as he’s who I WANT to be able to feel good voting for. I’m much less enthused than last time, though. I’m happy he doesn’t say awful things like Newt, but I wish he would put a little more action behind his words. Guess that just means that regardless of how you feel about the government dealing with poverty, war, etc., it’s important to be actively addressing these issues as best you can, individually and as part of a church community.
Just echoing what Daniel’s already said, but perhaps in a different way….
You may be exactly right in regard to the intentions and motives behind Gingrich’s statements. But that’s not the way he’s framing his argument. It’s really hard to hear the words he uses without the take-away that food stamps, themselves, are wrong. Not that they’re a less-than-perfect solution to a terrible problem that NEEDS solving. But that the solution shouldn’t exist, even if the problem hasn’t been solved yet.
That’s not a helpful way of saying that we need to do more to alleviate poverty, is it?
In the context of:
“Again, I can’t get on board with the ire expressed by Republicans (mostly) and Christians (hi, friends) that the extension of civil rights to all citizens is a great evil. ”
What is your definition of civil rights here?
It would seem to me that what you’re really saying is the extension of a particular, though not universal, right (marriage under the law) to a particular set of citizens (same-sex partners) that didn’t previously have it. You’re not, for instance, suggesting the extension of voting rights to minors. That could be an “extension of civil rights to all citizens” after all.
I mention it because it seems like people, on both sides of the issue, seem to make debate into a much larger “Prop. 8 is like going back to slavery” or “same-sex marriage would destroy the fabric of America” culture war. I think it helps when we can narrow the language down to the specific issue at hand. Thoughts?
I met Jim Rome at a Rubio’s in L.A. in April, 2000. High point of my life.
I have to agree with Mike above. I have no fondness for Gingrich but his food stamp remark wasn’t a slap against people receiving food stamps. I’ve heard his stump speech a couple of times and he says something to the effect of “Obama is the food stamp president. I’ll be the pay check president.” It is a political attack on (in his view) Obama’s ineffectiveness at getting the economy going.
Just thought I would add, as someone who leans conservative politically, I saw a bumper sticker I now covet:
“I miss Ike. Hell, I miss Harry!”
I hate and love politics. I personally try to vote on principle and platform rather than personalities. I’m no Gingrich fan, but the single most successful system to alleviate the most poverty and raise the most people out of suffering is free-market capitalism. Socialism just can’t do it. Well, we don’t get to choose either, we have hybrids on a scale, so I try to vote to best protect individual liberties and the freedoms listed in our constitution. I’ve never voted for a Democrat, but I’ll admit it is possible that I could.
Let’s suppose that we could all agree that caring for the needs of the poor is the duty of the church and not of the state. We don’t have a “Church of the USA” that is centralized and can coordinate the efforts and resources of every church in the country on a national or even on a state level. I don’t know if anyone posting here has ever actually served as a volunteer or as part of some church’s governing body, but in my experience, it is rare when individual churches aren’t bogged down by internal politics, petty rivalries, and lack of real understanding of the best processes to get a particular task done well and efficiently.
And imagine, if you will, a given local church being jerks about how they help the poor — in other words, not giving freely without obligation to whomever needed it, but allowing political leanings and controversial theological positions to determine what services they offer and to whom. Are Jewish or Muslim poor people allowed to be treated at a Christian charity? Is the Christian charity allowed to attempt to convert them?
Meanwhile, we have this system already set in place, in which system all adult citizens have a voice, on some level or another, which system is accountable to a central authority, and which system is required, by law, to treat all people equally. Why, if one really cared about tending to the poor, one would opt for the less efficient, less successful option in which one has almost no power to help make good choices over against the system that has the power, influence and resources to effect real change and in which system one has a say is beyond me, and when politicians decry that system, I cannot help but suspect them of some kind of knavery.
I think Gingrich’s use of this line is not to say “we hate poor people and all of you that have food stamps” as much as “choose a President that will invest more of his policies on job creation than increases social services addiction.” Welfare reform is badly needed. I know of several family members personally that are in a tough situation — they don’t make much money, but they make far more on government assistance than by getting a job. And if they get a job, they lose all their government assistance, and go back to the issue of not having enough. It’s wonky.
And yes, the argument is not about should we help others as much as “should the Federal government” be empowered with such a duty, and is it even constitutionally their duty? What about State government? Local, county, city government? Communities and churches?
The very reason, it seems, that many have given up their compassion toward others, is the “safety net” that they will be cared for. The government has taken a gut punch on the issue of charity and compassion. That said, Christians still do a heck of a job around the world loving on people, donating food, providing housing, offering services, etc. Not to pat us on that back either, because, as you said — in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need any government assistance, and if services were to stop tomorrow, our Christianity would be out of shape and not ready to keep up.
Regarding Prop 8. I hear both arguments on that. One is, our (Christian) morality is projected into our governing at many basic levels, so this is not a unique topic. Polygamy. Incest. 50 years ago we could have included sodomy and adultery. I’m probably more libertarian on this topic than most of my fellow brothers/sisters, and I probably agree much more with you. But, I’m also respectful and okay that there is a debate waging about what our society will look like, etc… at the end of the day, I don’t find Prop 8 terribly frightening, as long as all the implications (school curriculum, religious freedom infringements, etc) are resolved.
I find this post refreshing. The republican agenda is finally being distilled to its core belief, rich people need governmental protection for their wealth and if you are not rich it is your fault.
They have co-opted every group with a base to get on board yet surprisingly never actually advanced their cause. Gay marriage is becoming legal thought the country. Abortion is no less legal then it was under Clinton, or Reagan for that matter. Remember all that flag burning nonsense?
But today I turn on Christian radio and I hear about pro-business candidates and why we should fight health care reform.
God is for business and against healthcare. Right. When Christians started arguing that its ok for kids to be hungry because they are strangers in our country I could picture back room politicians giving each other a high five. Is there any harder position to defend biblically?
You look about the same age as me so I refuse to chalk this up to that. I think I am old enough to see that the republican party is not the Council of Nicaea.
I would agree with a lot of your thoughts here. I was less shocked and appalled at Newt calling for child labor than I was at the eery silence of anyone challenging the appropriateness of the practice.
Sometimes youthful zeal confuses maturity and the tempering of hard edges for “growing soft.”
In reference to the “food stamp” debate, I would like to suggest a book title “When Helping Hurts.” In it, the author argues that relief (such as food stamps) is only appropriate when there is a crisis (personal or national). Most of the time, however, what our people need are two other things: rehabilitation and development. So often the problem (and I speak with the experience of someone working daily with families in need) is spending habits and work habits that need to be adjusted. Sometimes it is development that needs to happen (education, counseling, etc). So often we stick a band-aid over a wound much to big for a band-aid to fix. All this to say, I want to find a president who redesigns the system to provide temporary relief while actually fixing the problems that led to their crisis from the start.
On the second issue, I am in a fierce wrestling match with myself on this issue. The very term marriage carries with it religious implications, and as such I believe should be handled by the church (which is still divided on the issue). However, the real issue in my mind, is the rights to information and tax benefits that currently come with marriage, which I think should be made much more widely available (a roommate should be granted medical access if they are the closest person to you)
The other question that I must raise and admit that I wrestle with is “what is civil rights”? The right to vote is secured for all adult citizens. Is marriage a right? I mean, really, is it? We live in one of the only countries in the world where we have the luxury to argue about whether marriage of certain individuals is valid or not. Could we not be better using our time, energy, and money (from both sides of the issue) to fight for basic human rights of people across the world (food, clean water, etc.)
Food stamps are at an all-time high.
I’m not disillusioned with Obama; I didn’t vote for him, but you have to know that there’s no way he could’ve delievered on all those promises and shame on the American public, though barely a majority of them, for believing his rhetoric. And shame on him for making those promises, quite frankly. I think we got what we deserved in that respect. Hate to say it, but it’s true.
The problem the Democrats are facing, almost everywhere they rule, is the un-sustainability of both their policies and over-arching vision. The last four years have proven – once again – that the People cannot possibly bear the burdens placed upon them by a system that demands such heavy taxation to keep it going. In fact, I just listened to the Mayor of Seattle this morning talk about a “revenue stream” for the City. Woe betide us (NT Wright voice) if we look our municipalities and public systems as cash cows. The system employed by most Demo’s in power actually creates and perpetuates the problems it so blithely declares it’s trying to help. Wake up peeps.
“The last four years have proven – once again – that the People cannot possibly bear the burdens placed upon them by a system that demands such heavy taxation to keep it going”
– tax burden is at a 40 year low; hence the increasing deficits; the instability isn’t inherit in the system, it’s the undermining of the system’s funding through the application of the Laffer Curve; something that was done by both sides of the aisle under the influence of Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney .
My intent isn’t to debate any of the policy or philosophical views you raise, just clarify the actual facts of history: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/us/politics/why-americans-think-the-tax-rate-is-high-and-why-theyre-wrong.html (there is a link available to the actual data in the article if you don’t trust the NYT as a news source)
I realize your tweet was meant to be provocative but “despise” is a bit unkind not to mention an untrue way to refer to the majority of those who oppose homosexual marriage. Of course it is a fairly useless debate at this point because the courts will ram it down our throats whether we like it or not. It WOULD be nice if you could muster the same zeal for the weakest of the weak among us…the unborn, but alive. Or do they not have civil rights?
Thank-you John Murphy. Exactly where I was going. How about it Daniel? How about a post on abortion?
I had to be on food stamps for almost a year. I was orphaned as a child. I only have one living relative in this country (that I know of). Best I could tell, he was in no position to give me any financial help. I was too ill to work (though supposedly not ill enough to be on disability…yet at the same time disabled enough to get free medical care from the state…strange, I know). If it weren’t for the kindness of people that barely knew me, I would have been homeless and living on the streets. They *probably* could have stretched their meager incomes to also help feed me (and they did for a while), but getting food stamps really helped.
Now I’m practically healthy as a horse…I have more money than I know what to do with…and I’m going back to school with the goal to become a teacher.
(Just thought that you might like to hear the story of someone who’s needed food stamps for a short period of time)
PS: the dog in my photo is actually the dog of one of my friends who helped house me when I had no where else to go
That dog helped keep me sane when I felt very useless.
You need to update one of your links:
http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/
is now
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/
’tis done. Thanks, Barbara!
Brendan O’Neill, an atheist, says that the comparison between gay marriage opponents and inter-racial marriage opponents is moronic (his words).
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100137861/it-is-moronic-to-compare-opposition-to-gay-marriage-with-opposition-to-interracial-marriage/
Every now and then an atheist can be wrong about something…