The Need to Reverse the Prevailing Winds

This past week, I came across an old episode of Firing Line – the William F. Buckley show where he interviewed various prominent figures.  The show paired the noted conservative thinker with the famed philosopher and activist Noam Chomsky.  The topic of conversation was the Vietnam War and the appropriateness of the conflict.  As I watched these two learned individuals, it dawned on me just how far we have digressed in our current political arena.  It is clear that what journalists expect of themselves and their audience has changed radically over the years. 

William F. Buckley was my political inspiration; the man who shook me from my general ambivalence and provided a prise de conscience to the importance of intellectualism and conservatism.  In his show, he was unapologetically adroit and demanded that his audience keep up, refusing to minimize or trivialize his subject matter.  The people he invited were equally demanding, speaking at the highest levels.  Together, Mr. Buckley and his guests represented the highest form of political and social discourse.  Additionally, the erudite, conservative thinker also had a shockingly biting sense of humor that left his audience wondering if they actually heard correctly.  On one occasion, Mr. Chomsky asked if his opponent remained seated on his Firing Line show because he couldn’t think on his feet.  Mr. Buckley, in his slow and deliberate drawl, responded, “It is hard to stand up under the weight of all that I know.” 

When held against the famous debates between Mr. Buckley and men like Gore Vidal, James Baldwin, Saul Alinsky and the aforementioned Noam Chomsky, what stands as political discussion today does not even deserve the characterization of a “cheap imitation.”  Such labeling would suggest an attempt to maintain the standards of those previous shows, however seldom achieved.  The pundits found on CNN, MSNBC and FOX are deplorable and not worthy of comparison.  There are a handful of people who consistently elevate the discussion – men like George Will and Bill Kristol.  Yet, they too must submit themselves to the altar of television commercialism and superficiality.  The yelling and lack of proper discourse often forces one to wonder when or if the adults will ever rescue our “news” from the ditch in which it seems firmly entrenched.   

What would be the benefit of the return of such programming?  That answer could fill pages but in short, it would re-establish the importance of being informed, something to which the American electorate seems, at times, unwilling to submit themselves.  Mr. Buckley once said that, “The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”  Like history, politics and the issues of today are best consumed in a medium that allows for the greatest exposition.  This, hopefully, can engender greater, more informative discussions rather than the tendency to speak in slogans.  Newspapers of today are responding to budget cuts by providing less, making their product irrelevant.  If they are to go the way of the dinosaur, best to go out with the highest demands and standards as possible.     

A second point suggests an appropriateness of serious discussions over serious issues where quick attempts to simplify and marginalize are the order of the day.  Last weekend, the Documentary Channel aired a show that featured a 1963 roundtable discussion between James Baldwin, Joseph Mankiewicz, Charlton Heston, Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando and Sidney Poitier on the subject of civil rights.  All the men had recently attended Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march upon the capital.  In a solemn and disciplined tone befitting the seriousness of the subject, they discussed.  Our society has a tendency to be sarcastic and “funny” in order to be entertaining but the worth of discussion stems from the exercise itself.  Much like education where subjects should be considered interesting in and of themselves, the journalists and philosophers need the intellectual room to allow ideas to breathe.  

Lastly, such programming would bring us away from the edge of the chasm, the bottom of which is littered with more modern shows and reinforce the need of bigger ideas.  We are drowning in small and insignificant notions and we are the worse for it as a society.  Some would say that are world no longer allows for this and it goes against the prevailing winds of technology and society.  Yet, imagine what would be possible if our leaders, those who cover them and the public demanded more. 

The Forests for the Trees

Seldom do men make bigger fools of themselves then when they seek to pass judgment upon others.  In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, a multi-faith service was put together to provide comfort and prayers for those suffering.  Within the service, ministers from different Christian denominations as well as clergy from other faiths came together to provide a sympathetic ear and new hope in the face of tragedy.  We turn to faith in the face of the unthinkable for religion is designed to help us view our place within this world.  In this moment, when our similarities shine brighter than our differences, one church condemned one of its ministers for taking part in the service and in the process, brought a shameful condemnation on an otherwise wonderful faith.   

The Lutheran Church is not unfamiliar with controversy or division so, perhaps, it should not be terribly surprising that the church is turning on one another over the actions of a few.  One of the branches of the Lutheran Church is the Missouri Synod, a conservative branch which has shown a strong commitment and allegiance to what they perceive as the core values of its sect.  The president of the Missouri Synod, the Reverend Matthew Harrison, demanded that Reverend Rob Morris apologize for the latter’s role in an interfaith vigil in Newtown.  Rev. Harrison justified his actions by suggesting Rev. Morris’ participation “violated the limits set by Scripture regarding joint worship.”  The Missouri Synod is not new to this as its previous leader, Reverend Gerald Kieschnick, faced blistering condemnation over allowing a pastor to take part in an interfaith prayer vigil at Yankee Stadium in the aftermath of the September 11^th attacks.   

There are many opportunities for a church to express and impress their views and doctrine upon those open to it.  However, common decency would suggest that this was not one of those times.  The fact that some members of the Missouri Synod clergy or congregants favor the actions of Rev. Harrison or feel that Rev. Morris was out of line is beside the point.  One of the most powerful components to the message of Jesus was the idea that we share a common humanity – we are not separated by our nationalities or cultures but rather we are linked together by the idea that we are all children of God.  If that can be assumed by those who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, than what is the objection by Rev. Harrison?  Who does he seek to reject?  Each of us, every day we leave the house, stand as a testimony to our values and our convictions by what we do or what we don’t do.  The Missouri Synod has chosen to take a stance that seems irrational at best and cruel at worst.   

It is unfortunate that Rev. Morris chose to apologize but as a young pastor looking to make his way through the world and considering his career, I can understand it.  However, I can’t help but consider the words of Martin Luther.  In 1521, the German monk was dragged before the Diet of Worms to answer for his views that eventually broke up the Catholic Church with the Protestant Reformation.  When he was asked to recant, Luther declared, “Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scripture or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.”  For a faith that began standing as an opposition to the orthodoxy that had perverted the Roman Church, it is too bad that Rev. Morris could not stand against the calcified dogma that is as outdated as its adherents are misguided.  No one man holds an exclusivity with God as He belongs to all of us, as does His grace.  He serves as a guide through our humanity, the humanity that links us all together.

The Hurried President

When I was growing up, my parents were always keen to tell me to slow down – “don’t eat so fast,” “you’re mowing the grass too quickly” and, my favorite, “you are trying to clean your room too fast, slow down and do it right.”  I was taught that if one wanted to do something right, one could not hurry through.  When the Founding Fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution, they purposefully created a system that would require an inordinate amount of time to get through bills or conclude other measures.  The fear was that if it were easier to enact legislation or amendments to the Constitution, emotionalism and reactionary impulses would determine the direction of the country.  The time spent would also allow the government to consider all options to avoid going blindly towards a “solution.”  President Obama is not adhering to the wisdom of those who constructed our government. 

In 1975, while prime minister of India, Indira Gandhi sought to jail her opponents.  At the time, she said, in her defense, that while an opposition was a necessity in a democratic system, democracy dictates that the opposition should allow the government to follow its programs since they were the ones elected.  President Obama, over the course of his time in office, has taken a similar point of view.  Over and again, he has attempted to rush through or otherwise avoid discussion over key points of legislation while chanting his personal mantra, “Pass it now.”  In the construction of his Affordable Care Act, the bill was constructed without much transparency and the bill was ultimately passed without a full investigation and discussion on its various components.  Constantly, the president bemoaned a process that insists on deliberation and discourse.  The Senate Democrats ran roughshod over Republican concerns which, by the way, represented the concern of a large portion of the population, and passed it with little consensus and even smaller comprehension. 

A couple of years ago, the president demanded that his job works program be instituted immediately.  His State of the Union Address was littered with repeated calls for passage.  I do not believe that the former constitutional lawyer is unaware of the function and design of Congress; I’m just not sure he is interested in the detail investigation of his policies.  It is his hope that that repeated incantations of the misery of the unemployed will force his opponents to simply rubber stamp his vision in a wave of emotionalism.  In more recent days, he is doing the same with the various programs introduced by Vice President Joe Biden to curb gun violence.  It is does not matter whether the programs and policies will work because that is not the point.  Rather, the show of action is meant to be enough to mollify those demanding substantive change.  A few weeks ago, his attempt last year to push through appointees to the National Labor Relation Board without Senate confirmation was slapped down by a federal court as unconstitutional and has highlighted a disregard for the law he once was entrusted with teaching and has wasted a year’s worth of efforts by the NLRB. 

Many of the president’s defenders will say that the obdurate nature of the Republicans is preventing anything from being done and the president is forced to try and end run around the Congress, where his opponents also include Democrats.  At the same time, the president is quick to point out that the Republicans should be working with Democrats though it is difficult to do that when, at the same time, he tries to circumvent them.  I’m sure neither President Obama nor his supporters are interested in my assessment of his legacy but much of it will be based on his tendency to attempt to strong-arm legislation through.  It is not a tactic worthy of man so knowledgeable of the Constitution nor is it in keeping with the finer traditions of democracy. 

A Brief Message, Part 3

Hello dear readers. There will be no blog this weekend.  Unlike previous occasions for such an entry, I'm not on a beach in Greece or deep in the bowels of the formally communist eastern Germany.  Nope, I'm knee-deep in American suburbia.  No fancy locales or exotic destinations loom ahead, merely the drudgery and triteness of ordinary life.  However, no need to feel gloom but rather, consider this as yet another opportunity to explore my previous pontifications on a variety of subjects. 

Until next week, ta-da. 

Ross