Spiritual wickedness in high places

“Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.” Isa 55:4

President Obama is sitting at an interesting cross roads in his presidency. In my opinion it will determine whether he will be regarded as Lincoln or Roosevelt, or something more in the middle of the pack. 

The crossroads moment is whether or not he is willing to confront the key ideological issue at play in the electorate today.

That issue is the role of government in the lives of its citizens.

The conservative view is that government is the problem. By implication, the solution to every problem then must be less government and more free market.

Roosevelt faced this same choice when he was elected. The stock market had crashed and the Great Depression was in full howl. The wisdom at the time was to reduce government and trust that the markets and the economy would recover on their own. Roosevelt chose to confront the issue head on when he said in his first inaugural speech that, “We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster”

This summarizes the liberal economic position then and today.

There is a role for government and it is to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people. It is also an outright rejection of the notion that free markets inherently serve the best interests of the people.

Even after the financial meltdown which demonstrated in the most obvious possible ways the inability of the free market to govern itself, conservatives continue to insist that government is the problem.

Until President Obama takes on this issue directly, he will continue to fight a trench war against this ideology. Fighting that trench war will only demonstrate to those who distrust government, that it is incapable of responding in a timely fashion to any challenge.

What we need is renewed faith in the ability of government to solve the big problems and hold the excesses of the market in check. This trust comes from our leader standing up and saying that the problem is not government. The problem is those who seek to obstruct the common good for their own self-interest.

If he does take this issue on directly, he has the opportunity to become the leader that we all hoped he would be.

“A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.” Prov 17:4

The whole Joe Wilson incident has raised a series of questions about both the man and this country.

The first question that comes to mind is whether it is acceptable under any circumstances for an individual to confront the President in that forum, a nationally televised speech to both houses of Congress, and call him a liar?

The second question is what motivated the outburst?

Finally, what does it say about the man and the process?

For a thoughtful treatment of the first question we probably should look at a history of Presidential lies, the impact that those lies had on the country, and how the Congress reacted to those lies. Then we should examine this particular incident to determine whether the particular claim of Joe Wilson is supported. Then perhaps we can answer the first question.

The biggest recent presidential lies that come to mind are Bush’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and Clinton’s claim that he did not, “have sex with that woman”. In the first case, we invaded Iraq, toppled the government, destroyed their infrastructure, never found any weapons of mass destruction, opened the door to al Qaeda, and are still there eight years later. There were no immediate consequences for President Bush. The Republicans did suffer a fairly resounding defeat in 2008, but that could be attributed as much to the economy as the war in Iraq. President Clinton was brought up on impeachment charges, but ultimately not convicted. This investigation did significantly weaken the President and set the stage for a very close Republican win in 2000.

As far as Joe Wilson’s claim, it was in reaction to President Obama’s statement that the administration does not support extending benefits to illegal aliens. His specific objection was that the current house bill, though it requires proof to participate, doesn’t specify how. There was an amendment offered in committee and rejected to add enforcement language. What Wilson also knew was that there ARE enforcement procedures in place requiring proof of citizenship for many other federal programs and that these procedures would likely get added to any bill that was signed.

As an elected representative, Mr. Wilson has access to many effective public and private methods to express his skepticism at the President’s comments. He is NOT a powerless individual whose only recourse is to disrupt a public meeting to express his views.

Finally, as an experienced and successful politician, Mr. Wilson’s claim of losing control of his emotions also does not ring true. Only those people who are masters at calculating the impact of their actions win statewide elections to national office. We live in a culture were every verbal slip or inappropriate emotional response is preserved and circulated. Only those who have cultivated the ability to control their emotions survive. Joe has spent eight years (four elections) in the House and 17 years in the state legislature. This was not a rookie mistake.

So maybe we can gain some insight by learning more about the man.

We know that he is from South Carolina. From his website, he is a military man dedicated to public service. He has four sons (all eagle scouts) who are following in his footsteps.

What you won’t find on the website is that he belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This was a fairly benign historical organization until the last five years or so when a more aggressive white supremacist faction took control. Mr. Wilson was one of only seven members of the SC senate who voted in 2000 to keep the original Confederate Flag flying over the SC state house. He then mounted a vigorous defense of the original flag and was quoted as saying, “the Confederate heritage is very honorable”.

He also denounced as a “smear” the claim that Senator Strom Thurmond fathered an African American daughter. Senator Thurmond later admitted his affair and his long warm relationship with his daughter.

So perhaps Joe Wilson is a racist and his outburst was an emotional reaction to being lectured by an African American who also happens to be the most powerful man in the country.

It’s also possible, as some have suggested, that Joe is part of the conservative backlash to a popular democratic president. FDR had his Father Coughlin. Truman had Joe McCarthy. JFK had the John Birch Society. Bill Clinton had Ken Starr and Newt.

He also could be part of the larger populist movement that gains momentum during any time of rapid change. Sometimes it is a conservative movement. Sometimes it is a liberal movement, but it seems to show up whenever the little guy feels the big guys have rigged the system. In it’s current incarnation, it is fear of government expansion at the expense of the little guy. You can also throw in a little of the reaction of the uneducated to the educated elite.

Finally, it could have been a very simple cynical political calculation. Disrupt the meeting and distract from what was billed as the biggest speech of President Obama’s career. It worked. Wilson became famous and talk about the disruption overwhelmed discussion about healthcare.

Joe Wilson may be some or all of these things. What he isn’t, however, is a victim.

His was a risky move, but it also has paid off handsomely. With a very simple statement, he has become a lightening rod for all of these groups. He has burst upon the national scene as a poster child for all sorts of conservative causes. His fund-raising has skyrocketed to the tune of several million dollars. Would you call the President a liar for several million dollars?

At the end of the day, it is never acceptable to disrupt a President’s speech in the manner that Joe Wilson did for the following reasons.

Such an outburst by any conservative politician in today’s political climate will advance that career. That makes it unethical behavior. Since you can’t determine if the act is sincere or cynical, the end result is the same – advancing your own career at the expense of the respect for the office of the President.

Elected officials have to be held to a higher ethical standard because of the trust that they accept from the public. So they not only have to avoid outright issues where they sell their office and influence for money/fame, but they also have to avoid the appearance of such conflicts of interest.

This situation is no different.

It is his responsibility to avoid situations where there is any question about the motivations for his actions. This is clearly one of those situations and as a result, it is right up there with Bill Clinton and George Bush as a big lie.

There is a lot of misinformation being circulated as part of the current healthcare debate.

In order to have a healthy debate about the issues, you have to start with some agreed facts.

1.Healthcare costs are growing faster than the economy. Both government and private industry are near the limits of what they can pay. As a result, those who have coverage are paying more for less and the ranks of the uninsured have grown dramatically.

2.Our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world but our population ranks near the bottom of industrialized countries in most health measures. In other words, other countries have figured out how to get better outcomes for less money than what we spend. That puts our country and our industries at a significant competitive disadvantage.

3.Every other industrialized country in the world that ranks higher than us provides some form of universal coverage. Those countries with the healthiest populations focus on prevention of problems while our system focuses on treatment of disease.

The current healthcare system in unsustainable. The uninsured end up receiving care in hospital emergency rooms which is the most expensive care our system can provide. Those costs end up getting passed on to the rest of us through higher insurance premiums and taxes. The baby boomer generation is going to bankrupt the medicare system in the next ten years or so.

Status quo is not an option, yet those who oppose proposed changes to the current system have not offered alternatives. Instead, they are spreading fear and doubt in an effort to defeat ANY change. You have to ask yourself why that is, but I can tell you that it has nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with profit.

Here are some examples of misinformation.

Illegal aliens will receive free health care. – FALSE

A Healthcare Commissioner will decide health benefits for you. – FALSE

The government will fund abortions. – FALSE

The government will force abortions and put sterilants in drinking water – FALSE

The health care reform bill “would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” – FALSE

The healthcare reform bill outlaws private insurance – FALSE

Under a public health care option, 120 million Americans will “lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage.” – FALSE

“Under the Obama plan . . . all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government.” – FALSE

In order to bring down costs we have to do a couple of simple things.

1.Everyone has to have access to affordable preventative care. The rest of the industrialized world has proven that this works to bring down the cost of care and improve the overall health of the population.

2.Provide physicians incentives to adopt new technology which makes it easier to share patient information between all caregivers. Other countries have also proven that this improves care and reduces cost.

3.Reward those who make choices which reduce their costs of care. The government can’t force anyone to be responsible, but it can provide incentives for those who are willing to make lifestyle choices which reduce their need to use the healthcare system. The healthiest industrialized populations have healthcare systems which focus on prevention rather than treatment.

The government doesn’t have to control the healthcare system. It just has to provide an alternative for those who can’t get coverage through the private system. It doesn’t have to be perfect. It only has to transfer care from the emergency room to the examining room to be successful.

The government doesn’t have to control patient information either. It just has to provide the rules and oversight that make sure that the taxpayer’s investments deliver the expected results.

Finally the government doesn’t have to dictate individual behavior. But just like determining what speeds get the most cars down the road with the fewest accidents, it can reduce the cost of care for everyone by providing information on how to prevent disease and rewarding those who choose healthier lifestyles.

It’s hard to feel sorry for Sarah Palin.

She recently resigned as governor of Alaska because she felt she was the victim of the “political of personal destruction”.

This is curious from a couple of perspectives.

First, I agree with her. The level of abuse that public officials take these days does seem extreme. It’s hard for me to understand why anyone would willingly submit themselves to what in many cases amounts to slander.

On the other hand, knowing that the politics of personal destruction are a part of the reality of political life in this country, it’s also hard for me to square her concerns and her clear ambition for national office. It’s as if she is saying that she wants the spotlight, but doesn’t like the glare.

It has to be crystal clear to those who have political ambitions that even a hint of impropriety these days can be blown into a career threatening incident. So one of the new qualifications for office is your ability to recognize what could become toxic and avoid those situations. Rather than avoid situations which could cause controversy, she seems to thrive on them and then bleat to her supporters about how she has been treated unfairly. Either she is inept, or she is manipulating both the press and her supporters who eagerly rally to her side and donate to her cause when they feel she needs defending.

For example, I agree that families of politicians should be off limits as long as the politicians themselves don’t make those families an issue in the campaign. So it was way off base when Rush Limbaugh and John McCain made jokes about Chelsea Clinton because the Clintons kept her out of the spotlight. Palin, however, used her children to support her claim that she was qualified for office. She introduced them to the nation and they campaigned with her. You can’t have it both ways.

Similarly, you can’t condemn the politics of personal destruction (a term coined by President Clinton) when they are directed at you and liberally employ them when it suits your purposes. If you recall, it was Palin who coined the “pals around with terrorists” phrase. She was also eager to bring then candidate Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright into the debate over the objections of her running mate.
Finally, ethical concerns remain unanswered from her campaign and her time in office. Whether or not these concerns were legit or politically motivated really isn’t the issue. Clearly they are politically motivated. But so were the eight years and millions of dollars the Republican congress gave Ken Stark to dig up something on President Clinton and his wife.

At the end of the day, I find myself agreeing with Levi Johnson. He has said that it is all about money. According to him, his almost mother-in-law felt her opportunity to cash in on her new found notoriety was now. If she waited until her term expired, she would risk being discredited by one or more of the ongoing investigations as well as the short attention span of the American public. She will make lots of money from book deals, speaking engagements, and fund raisers. She will be free to comment on the issues of the day and keep herself in public view. It is likely that she will also mount another campaign in 2012, God help us all.

Ok I have to weigh in on this Sarah Palin/Dave Letterman controversy.

The only reason why is that it appears to be over, so I wanted to go through a little “lessons learned”.

The first lesson is a question. Do any of you think that this was an accident? Those of you who think it was an accident can stop reading because you are also likely to learn that there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.

This was a manufactured crisis which served the purposes of both people.

It served Letterman’s purpose because his main ratings competitor, The Tonight Show, was changing hosts. There was an opportunity to steal the spotlight and some ratings points. It worked.

It served Palin’s purpose because she had just come off a badly fumbled Republican speaking engagement. This is the one where she was invited to speak, declined because the group was unwilling to make concessions, then when Newt Gingrich agreed to speak in her place, decided to show up after all and make an awkward cameo appearance. It put her back in the limelight in the role of an outraged mother fiercely defending her child in particular and women young and old in general. It worked.

When both parties determined that they had squeezed about as much publicity out of the stunt as they could, they both agreed to end it.

The second lesson is a little more subtle. It was a litmus test of political correctness on the right and left. What it proved is that when the right feels as though one of its own have been the victim of “hate speech”, they fall right in line saying all of the same things as the left does when it feels that one of its own has been treated unfairly. So at the end of the day, you have the curious juxtaposition of Fox News commending Sarah Palin for her gracious acceptance of David Letterman’s apology for “inciting men to rape underage girls”, while at the same time defending itself for inciting murder by calling Dr. Tiller a “baby killer”.

The last lesson is a word to the wise. The human can only aspire to the divine, it can never duplicate it. As a result, nothing is completely black or white. Those who describe it as such have another purpose for doing so. They have another agenda that you may or may not be aware of. You have passed the first test for wisdom when you hold your favorite sources of information up to the same scrutiny that they bring to bear on the those they disagree with.