Thursday, December 25, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Rick Warren and the Obama Doctrine
I've paid as little attention as possible to things like the current kerfluffle surrounding the selection of Pastor Rick Warren to perform the Inaugural Invocation. However, I recently had an exchange that sparked a bit of thought.
A volunteer who had come from California to Las Vegas to carry us through the final days of the campaign wrote asking that I forward his note to those in the "Obama in crowd" with whom I was familiar. After reading his thoughts, I was moved to a few of my own. For his own words, read here: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=767378991&ref=profile#/note.php?note_id=39119134286&ref=nf
The truth is, I pay very little attention to these types of issues because what has come to pass for dialogue in this country is anything but. Dialogue has come to mean two or more opposing "experts" presenting individual monologues at increasing volume until the commercial break. Or, in this case, a letter writing protest campaign that does nothing but stir continued controversy for the talking heads to bloviate further until we are all stirred into an irrational frenzy. This sickness started long before I ever bothered following politics, and has undoubtedly culminated in the preposterous situation in which we currently find ourselves. The simple fact is that, if anyone in positions of authority bothered to listen to opposing voices with any seriousness, most of the issues we currently face would long ago have found reasonable solutions or been prevented altogether.
I decided that I, for one, would not shrink from engaging in a discussion, nor would I pay party line lipservice to the cause du jour. And so, rather than perform my perfunctory lie of "yes, I'll pass it on," followed by a quick trip to my trash can, I decided to write a real response, which can be found below. And, since I'm currently unemployed (available for hire?), and will soon be trying to find ways to escape from my family over the holidays (enjoy personal time?), I hereby throw my hat into the ring to be trampled and/or carried aloft. Allow me to present my argument for the Obama Doctrine, and the inclusion of Rick Warren in my 30th birthday party (oh yes, Jan. 20 is actually my 30th birthday party, this inauguration business is just a sideshow).
Hi Kevin,
I have been well, although now getting very bored. Hopefully, there will be something productive for me soon.
As to my ties with the Obama "in-crowd", I was never much in with them. However, I will be happy to pass your note to those with whom I am in touch.
For myself, to be honest, I think the selection of Warren is a good one. The reasons are:
1: While his support for prop 8 is something I firmly condemn, he has played an integral role in moving the evangelical discussion into progressive arenas on issues ranging from climate change to poverty.
2: He is respected in large parts of the evangelical community, and the hopes of preventing further laws similar to prop 8 rest, I believe, in engaging people in dialogue, not in protest or boycott.
3: The greatest need we have in this country is dialogue. It has been the most sorely lacking aspect of governance in the last many years, including the Clinton years. The idea that we should refuse to seek diverse points of view or that shutting out voices of opposition is productive has been clearly disproven. I believe that allowing someone such as Warren to take part, despite a clear disagreement on an important issue, will help to open the lines of dialogue for all of us. I further believe it will allow us to change minds on many issues, just as Warren has been able to bring millions of evangelicals to the causes of environmental stewardship, philanthropy, and other social issues that are too often anathema to the religious right.
4: If we want to live in a pluralist society where ALL voices are heard, and where ALL people are truly equal, then we not only cannot shrink from including those with whom we disagree, indeed, we must seek them out and invite them to take part in the process. Only by including ALL voices and opinions can we hope to win support for our own ideas. The bigotry that you suffer is caused by something not dissimilar from the root of your protest - an unwillingness to engage in a calm and rational discussion with those we oppose or simply do not understand. The philosophy which has produced the greatest progressive results of the last century, Gandhi's non-violent resistance, requires that we show we are willing to do what our opponents are not: engage with and undertake to understand an opposing, and in this case oppressive, point of view, despite our strongest reservations.
In the end, I personally support the selection of Rick Warren, but I will be happy to present your case to those few individuals I know. No one was ever hurt by hearing an opposing point of view. The most important lessons of my life were learned by hearing out my opponents. At worst, I came away having confirmed my own predisposition. Often, I came away with a new perspective that strengthened my own ideas. At best, I was able to open my opponent's mind to a new idea. I worked to elect Barack not because I thought he would value the wise council of those with whom I agree, but because I knew he would seek the opinions of those whom I oppose.
End transmission.
And begin the Obama Doctrine. I for one welcome it. I'm tired of finger pointing, I'm tired of name calling, I'm tired of letter writing campaigns, blustering emails, fanciful ads in the NYT, and all manner of protest. I'm not a partisan warrior. I'm not into holding signs, or yelling, or going home if I don't get my way. If you thought we were electing a partisan warrior, you were looking at the wrong guy. If you want the liberal version of GWB, someone who seeks only complementary council and pushes forward only a fractional agenda, then you're no better than everyone you spit on. If everyone doesn't have a seat at the table, everyone loses the game. I personally am ready to play.
* addendum - just to be clear, I'd like to restate my strong opposition to Warren's stance on gay marriage. If the so-called defenders of traditional marriage really want to protect marriage and hew strictly to biblical teachings, their first real battle has to be for the criminalization of divorce. If you're gonna pick a fight based on religion and not bigotry, that's the one. Nowhere does the bible say that two men or two women can't marry one another, just that they're not supposed to engage in physical intimacy. There are some pretty strong words to be said against divorce in there though. Religious argument against gay marriage is, in my opinion, based in bigotry, not gospel, and the focus on gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage is a white elephant, a flimsy smokescreen for hatemongering and a pathetically thin hypocracy. If you want a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, outlaw divorce first. Oh, but wait. Then you'd be limited in your options too.
A volunteer who had come from California to Las Vegas to carry us through the final days of the campaign wrote asking that I forward his note to those in the "Obama in crowd" with whom I was familiar. After reading his thoughts, I was moved to a few of my own. For his own words, read here: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=767378991&ref=profile#/note.php?note_id=39119134286&ref=nf
The truth is, I pay very little attention to these types of issues because what has come to pass for dialogue in this country is anything but. Dialogue has come to mean two or more opposing "experts" presenting individual monologues at increasing volume until the commercial break. Or, in this case, a letter writing protest campaign that does nothing but stir continued controversy for the talking heads to bloviate further until we are all stirred into an irrational frenzy. This sickness started long before I ever bothered following politics, and has undoubtedly culminated in the preposterous situation in which we currently find ourselves. The simple fact is that, if anyone in positions of authority bothered to listen to opposing voices with any seriousness, most of the issues we currently face would long ago have found reasonable solutions or been prevented altogether.
I decided that I, for one, would not shrink from engaging in a discussion, nor would I pay party line lipservice to the cause du jour. And so, rather than perform my perfunctory lie of "yes, I'll pass it on," followed by a quick trip to my trash can, I decided to write a real response, which can be found below. And, since I'm currently unemployed (available for hire?), and will soon be trying to find ways to escape from my family over the holidays (enjoy personal time?), I hereby throw my hat into the ring to be trampled and/or carried aloft. Allow me to present my argument for the Obama Doctrine, and the inclusion of Rick Warren in my 30th birthday party (oh yes, Jan. 20 is actually my 30th birthday party, this inauguration business is just a sideshow).
Hi Kevin,
I have been well, although now getting very bored. Hopefully, there will be something productive for me soon.
As to my ties with the Obama "in-crowd", I was never much in with them. However, I will be happy to pass your note to those with whom I am in touch.
For myself, to be honest, I think the selection of Warren is a good one. The reasons are:
1: While his support for prop 8 is something I firmly condemn, he has played an integral role in moving the evangelical discussion into progressive arenas on issues ranging from climate change to poverty.
2: He is respected in large parts of the evangelical community, and the hopes of preventing further laws similar to prop 8 rest, I believe, in engaging people in dialogue, not in protest or boycott.
3: The greatest need we have in this country is dialogue. It has been the most sorely lacking aspect of governance in the last many years, including the Clinton years. The idea that we should refuse to seek diverse points of view or that shutting out voices of opposition is productive has been clearly disproven. I believe that allowing someone such as Warren to take part, despite a clear disagreement on an important issue, will help to open the lines of dialogue for all of us. I further believe it will allow us to change minds on many issues, just as Warren has been able to bring millions of evangelicals to the causes of environmental stewardship, philanthropy, and other social issues that are too often anathema to the religious right.
4: If we want to live in a pluralist society where ALL voices are heard, and where ALL people are truly equal, then we not only cannot shrink from including those with whom we disagree, indeed, we must seek them out and invite them to take part in the process. Only by including ALL voices and opinions can we hope to win support for our own ideas. The bigotry that you suffer is caused by something not dissimilar from the root of your protest - an unwillingness to engage in a calm and rational discussion with those we oppose or simply do not understand. The philosophy which has produced the greatest progressive results of the last century, Gandhi's non-violent resistance, requires that we show we are willing to do what our opponents are not: engage with and undertake to understand an opposing, and in this case oppressive, point of view, despite our strongest reservations.
In the end, I personally support the selection of Rick Warren, but I will be happy to present your case to those few individuals I know. No one was ever hurt by hearing an opposing point of view. The most important lessons of my life were learned by hearing out my opponents. At worst, I came away having confirmed my own predisposition. Often, I came away with a new perspective that strengthened my own ideas. At best, I was able to open my opponent's mind to a new idea. I worked to elect Barack not because I thought he would value the wise council of those with whom I agree, but because I knew he would seek the opinions of those whom I oppose.
End transmission.
And begin the Obama Doctrine. I for one welcome it. I'm tired of finger pointing, I'm tired of name calling, I'm tired of letter writing campaigns, blustering emails, fanciful ads in the NYT, and all manner of protest. I'm not a partisan warrior. I'm not into holding signs, or yelling, or going home if I don't get my way. If you thought we were electing a partisan warrior, you were looking at the wrong guy. If you want the liberal version of GWB, someone who seeks only complementary council and pushes forward only a fractional agenda, then you're no better than everyone you spit on. If everyone doesn't have a seat at the table, everyone loses the game. I personally am ready to play.
* addendum - just to be clear, I'd like to restate my strong opposition to Warren's stance on gay marriage. If the so-called defenders of traditional marriage really want to protect marriage and hew strictly to biblical teachings, their first real battle has to be for the criminalization of divorce. If you're gonna pick a fight based on religion and not bigotry, that's the one. Nowhere does the bible say that two men or two women can't marry one another, just that they're not supposed to engage in physical intimacy. There are some pretty strong words to be said against divorce in there though. Religious argument against gay marriage is, in my opinion, based in bigotry, not gospel, and the focus on gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage is a white elephant, a flimsy smokescreen for hatemongering and a pathetically thin hypocracy. If you want a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, outlaw divorce first. Oh, but wait. Then you'd be limited in your options too.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Max Kennedy
For those who've been waiting, never fear. A massive update awaits, just as soon as I'm done sleeping.
However, an incredible story from the final non-election day of the campaign.
Max Kennedy, son of Bobby, is traipsing around Las Vegas, and generally firing people up wherever he goes. I say traipsing, because unlike other surrogates, he refused a staff escort. He just took his schedule, hopped in the car with his wife and their GPS system, and set out to meet the organizers and volunteers.
He arrived a little early to our office, while we were unloading boxes of literature for tomorrow's blitz. He didn't say anything, he just grabbed boxes and helped us unload. Then, when we were finished, he was like, "Who's Evan? I'm Max."
He took time to talk to everyone, and then addressed us all. He talked to us about the importance of Field, and how the last Field-Based Democratic Campaign for President was 40 years ago when his father ran.
One of our volunteers was a Field Organizer for Kerry in '04, and had gone canvassing in the not-so-hot part of town with Max then. They reminisced about knocking on the doors of low rent motels and driving hookers to their polling places.
One of our volunteers is an older woman, a child of the Kennedy era, and her eyes were sparkling while he talked to her, and streaming tears when he talked about how he saw his father's legacy being carried forward.
One of our volunteers, another child of the Kennedy era, came up and said, "I just want to tell you, I've only ever volunteered for one other campaign, and it was your daddy's."
It's moments like this that make me remember what an incredible opportunity I've had, what an amazing ride this has been, and how lucky I am to be a part of this.
And thank you. Thank you to everyone who joined on, who kept fighting, day after day, kept the phones humming, and the doorbells ringing. Thanks to everyone who made it a part of daily life for so long. No one expected this, especially in Nevada, and we earned it fair and square.
However, an incredible story from the final non-election day of the campaign.
Max Kennedy, son of Bobby, is traipsing around Las Vegas, and generally firing people up wherever he goes. I say traipsing, because unlike other surrogates, he refused a staff escort. He just took his schedule, hopped in the car with his wife and their GPS system, and set out to meet the organizers and volunteers.
He arrived a little early to our office, while we were unloading boxes of literature for tomorrow's blitz. He didn't say anything, he just grabbed boxes and helped us unload. Then, when we were finished, he was like, "Who's Evan? I'm Max."
He took time to talk to everyone, and then addressed us all. He talked to us about the importance of Field, and how the last Field-Based Democratic Campaign for President was 40 years ago when his father ran.
One of our volunteers was a Field Organizer for Kerry in '04, and had gone canvassing in the not-so-hot part of town with Max then. They reminisced about knocking on the doors of low rent motels and driving hookers to their polling places.
One of our volunteers is an older woman, a child of the Kennedy era, and her eyes were sparkling while he talked to her, and streaming tears when he talked about how he saw his father's legacy being carried forward.
One of our volunteers, another child of the Kennedy era, came up and said, "I just want to tell you, I've only ever volunteered for one other campaign, and it was your daddy's."
It's moments like this that make me remember what an incredible opportunity I've had, what an amazing ride this has been, and how lucky I am to be a part of this.
And thank you. Thank you to everyone who joined on, who kept fighting, day after day, kept the phones humming, and the doorbells ringing. Thanks to everyone who made it a part of daily life for so long. No one expected this, especially in Nevada, and we earned it fair and square.
Monday, July 21, 2008
i'd say these two are worth a net difference of well more than 1000 words... same day...
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A Complete Remodel?
Why have just one aimless blog when I can have two? It's a question I've been asking myself a lot lately. Since my earlier writings and my more recent writings aren't really getting along, and, therefore, are asking for a divorce, I've decided to answer the question by trying it out.
So, henceforth, those who wish to read whatever analytical (and most likely not campaign related as we move into the GE) writing I post here shall continue to do so, mindful of the fact that it will likely be not the most well updated, nor will it be likely to posses many things you can't read somewhere else.
Those who wish to follow my experiments with the sonnet and other forms of metered and non-metered but non-analytic writing should henceforth direct their attention to www.evansuttonpoetry.blogspot.com.
Fair warning, however, that the new one will, on occasion, contain graphic language and adult content not suitable for all audiences. I'll try to warn you before the post, but I'm not your mama, so read at your own risk.
Ciao!
So, henceforth, those who wish to read whatever analytical (and most likely not campaign related as we move into the GE) writing I post here shall continue to do so, mindful of the fact that it will likely be not the most well updated, nor will it be likely to posses many things you can't read somewhere else.
Those who wish to follow my experiments with the sonnet and other forms of metered and non-metered but non-analytic writing should henceforth direct their attention to www.evansuttonpoetry.blogspot.com.
Fair warning, however, that the new one will, on occasion, contain graphic language and adult content not suitable for all audiences. I'll try to warn you before the post, but I'm not your mama, so read at your own risk.
Ciao!
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Why I Love This Guy
This was originally not supposed to go anywhere, but since our New Media team has put it on YouTube, I think the cat's out of the bag.
There are a lot of reasons I point to when people say, "yeah, but is he really different?" There are a lot of reasons that I'll happily do whatever they tell me to do. This is a perfect example of all of it - the day before HRC suspended her campaign, we got this:
I didn't write it. It's not in iambic pentameter. But I think we can all see the poetry, no matter the format.
There are a lot of reasons I point to when people say, "yeah, but is he really different?" There are a lot of reasons that I'll happily do whatever they tell me to do. This is a perfect example of all of it - the day before HRC suspended her campaign, we got this:
I didn't write it. It's not in iambic pentameter. But I think we can all see the poetry, no matter the format.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Assorted Random Thoughts
I realize I've been MIA on the blogging front for a period. Part of it is that the work I'm doing now is a combination of incredibly boring, process management, and highly sensitive, so it's not really blog-able. Simultaneously, the race has become incredibly pedestrian, as it seems to have resigned itself to a game of political one-upsmanship. It's kind of like watching Crossfire, only before John Stewart exposed it for the ridiculous sham it is. My comment, politically, for the moment is simply this: anyone but Hillary Clinton would have long since been forced out of the race, or, like Ron Paul on the Republican side, marginalized to the point of virtual extinction. But, because of who she is, there was no real call from the media or the political establishment after her series of 11 straight losses, nor after her less than game changing performances in recent contests. Now, because she is Hillary Clinton, once heir apparent to the throne and queen to the aging king, she is being allowed to continue what is essentially a clear eyed, kamikaze attempt to usurp the vote. In so doing she is making a mockery of the process, of the system, and of the voters.
But I'm tired of it, to be honest. Tired of the handwringing pundits, and breathless suspense that doesn't exist, and the endless speculation about who knows whom or how what who said is surely the end of everything. Short of the miraculous (earning upwards of 70% of the remaining pledged delegates), there is no legitimate way for her to win any longer. The popular vote, no matter what they tell you, is not a legitimate metric, and becomes especially illegit when made, as she would, to count votes in MI where she was the only person on the ballot. The rules were agreed to by all, and the rules don't change halfway through. But as this continues, one candidate insists on playing a high-profile game of Calvinball, constantly shifting the goalposts and the means of scoring. It doesn't change the simple fact that most people with an understanding of the process and an ability to look beyond the most recent dustup understand that a nominee chosen by superdelegates despite trailing in the one metric that everyone agreed to follow would serve only to open significant fault lines in the party. And, should that take place, I feel confident we will see the '68 Convention repeat itself, Rush Limbaugh's finest dreams be realized, and the democratic party perform a spectacular and no doubt painful act of ritual suicide.
But that's about all I'm inclined to say on that.
But I'm tired of it, to be honest. Tired of the handwringing pundits, and breathless suspense that doesn't exist, and the endless speculation about who knows whom or how what who said is surely the end of everything. Short of the miraculous (earning upwards of 70% of the remaining pledged delegates), there is no legitimate way for her to win any longer. The popular vote, no matter what they tell you, is not a legitimate metric, and becomes especially illegit when made, as she would, to count votes in MI where she was the only person on the ballot. The rules were agreed to by all, and the rules don't change halfway through. But as this continues, one candidate insists on playing a high-profile game of Calvinball, constantly shifting the goalposts and the means of scoring. It doesn't change the simple fact that most people with an understanding of the process and an ability to look beyond the most recent dustup understand that a nominee chosen by superdelegates despite trailing in the one metric that everyone agreed to follow would serve only to open significant fault lines in the party. And, should that take place, I feel confident we will see the '68 Convention repeat itself, Rush Limbaugh's finest dreams be realized, and the democratic party perform a spectacular and no doubt painful act of ritual suicide.
But that's about all I'm inclined to say on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)