Balancing the Christian Voice? or just counterbalancing the Neo-cons?
While it may feel good to circulate petitions and press releases re: Gov. Palin's behavior, my gut reaction is to question the wisdom of doing so. Guideline 8 of "How to engage in politics without losing your soul" states my concern. "Christians must never allow ourselves to become (so) interwined with one political party that we forfeit our independent identity as followers of Christ. When we do, we lose the prophetic voice to speak and clarify biblical truths to all politicians and political parties (1 Timothy 3:15, Ephesians 4:15, Romans 3:4) My reading of the all three references admonishes us to be unjudgmental and objective. While we have engaged on this blog site in much criticism of the Republican party we've raised virtually no critical questions regarding the policies and conduct of the Democratic party.
If our objective is to "balance the Christan voice" then we should be investigating the role of the Democratic Party in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle. Sen. McCain may well be correct in his assertion that the Democratic party's push for more minority ownership may have put into place some of the conditions and instruments, created a political climate, that helped encouraged the sub-prime mortgage mess to occur. How much blame do the Democrats bear? Have the Democrats unwisely advanced a worthy cause, and in the process encouraged unbridled forces of greed to run amok and unstablize the world's economy? Have they encouraged the use of free will without demanding full responsiblity for the consequences of such actions? Where were their demands for transparency and oversight in pursuit of free market principles PRIOR to this unfolding of this mess?
As a prophetic voice we need to keep a healthy distance, to maintain a clear separation of church and state, in order to stay free to raise the uncomfortable questions that all policians need to address. The role of the Democrats in creating the present economic challenge is one such question.
Perhaps we can address this issue during tomorrow nights Theology Panel conference call. IMO, it clearly relates to the strict father-nutrient parent discussion Rev. Roger proposes we engage in.
- anElder's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Bias and the credit crisis
First, Rich, I feel slighted by that "virtually no critical questions regarding the policies and conduct of the Democratic party", as I have been quite critical of the Democrats and of Obama. Perhaps I should have tried harder to overcome my reluctance to argue, in the face of much resistance and my own low energy, the case for seeing Obama as essentially conservative (or at best very cautious, though with reasons to be so), despite his potential.
You raise the issue of the subprime mortgage mess. It's worth discussing in some detail. The Republican line on it is that it's all the fault of the Democrats' minority ownership policies -- and in it's most blatant Fox News racist versions, that boils down to "lending to minorities is the cause of all the problems." And that the Democrats "forced" this lending because of their enthusiasm for 'affirmative action' in all things.
The article from Media Matters that Frank cited covers the subject well. In addition, although Democratic-backed legislation encouraged lending within formerly red-lined areas, they never demanded that unsafe loans be made. Bank examiners, in investigating banks for compliance, were looking only for fair treatment in line with the applicants' qualifications.
I believe that the Dems also suggested "securitization" -- bundling more risky loans with safer loans to produce somewhat higher-yielding "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs), or pools of mortgages, that would be attractive to institutional investors. But CDOs predate the Clinton administration. The first one was in 1987 and figured in the S&L debacle.
That's the tiny kernel of fact that McCain and the Republicans have built their case on.
As it turned out, the banks needed no prodding from the government. They discovered that subprime mortgages were a gold mine. First, there was lots and lots of money available. The Federal Reserve flooded the zone, so to speak, and kept interests rates low. Thanks, Alan Greenspan.
So the big investors went looking for higher yields than were readily available. CDOs that included subprime mortgages paid investors a higher yield in return for the increased risks. "Financial engineers", including people who came into investment banking from the hard sciences, like physics, developed computer models of various market scenarios that "proved" that there really was no increased risk. So the extra interest income was all gravy.
[There's a simply breathtaking quote from one of the model builders that I haven't been able to locate today. He said that it was impossible even to imagine any circumstances which could conceivably ever result in the loss of any money at all. The arrogance was breathtaking.]
[Note: many of the models were proprietary. So no one other than the owners of the model understood how they were supposed to work. Thus, there's this continuing situation of lack of transparency where no one knows who's solvent or insolvent and who can repay an overnight interbank loan or not. Thus the seizing up of the credit system and the credit crisis which has so dominated the markets - and the continual improvising of ways to shore up the financial system before there's an economic crash. Finally, they've come to the point of conceding that the government has to invest directly in the banking system - or else.]
Now here's where the reality of corporate irresponsibility kicks in. In days of yore, banks and S&Ls wrote mortgages and kept them until they were paid off. Thus, they were very attentive to risk. But with the financialization of everything in this supposedly post-industrial economy, these mortgages could be "securitized". Investment bankers would pay a premium fee to the banks, S&Ls, and mortgage brokers for the subprime loans that they originated. So the banks, S&Ls, and mortgage brokers no longer cared about risk -- they got their fee and someone else could worry about the loan being paid off in the future. In fact, it was so profitable for them that it's been claimed that 60% or so of the subprime borrowers actually qualified for standard mortgages, but were steered, fraudulently, into subprime loans with low or no down payments and with initial low teaser rates followed by unusually high adjustable rates that often came as a shocking surprise to the home 'owners'. African-Americans were disproportionately targeted and steered into these loans. The mantra of the inevitability of higher house prices was the background music for this game.
Next, the investment brokers, with their financial engineers, "sliced and diced" (the favored cute phrase to describe the process) mortgages into the CDO packages. Since these CDOs were safe and also paid higher interest, the investment bankers could take very large fees for their underwriting labors.
How did they know they were safe? The investment rating agencies (mainly Standard & Poor's and Moody's, with Fitch Ratings a distant 3rd in size) handed out the quality/safety rating for the CDOs, as they do with all types of bonds. Since investment bankers pay fees to the rating agencies to rate these things, it's not surprising that the subprime-laden CDOs tended to 'earn' high ratings -- with each type of "slice" (or tranche) being assessed separately and then combined into an overall rating. These CDOs could earn 2-3% more than standard bonds of comparably rated quality. Gee - low risk, high return. No questions asked.
So we have the banks and other mortgage originators taking their cut; the investment banks taking their hefty cut; and the rating agencies getting very nicely paid for laying hands on the deals and blessing them. And the markets bought it.
And with lots of cheap, cheap money being made available by Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve, we had lots of houses being built. Until the bubble burst and the price of houses started to come down, undercutting the whole structure of debt that had been built up.
And then, lo and behold, the problem of Credit Default Swaps became apparent -- they're insurance contracts that are called "swaps" so that they don't fall under the supervision of agencies that regulate insurance. Many more swaps were written than there were mortgages to insure. That's because they became a speculative vehicle. Investment bankers lost billions because they issued too many swaps contracts.
That's where "leverage" kicked in. In those days of yore, banks lent out maybe 7-8 times the capital that they had on hand. Investment bankers risked more, because they didn't have to worry about depositors -- so my understanding is that they leveraged their capital by 12-14 to 1. But as the bubble grew, banks went to perhaps 15-1 leverage and investment bankers from 20+ to 30 or more to 1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are said to have gone to 100-1. That means if they lost just 1% of their investments, their capital would get totally wiped out. Madness.
Back to Dems and Reps -- both share blame, but the Republicans were running the game and cutting back on regulatory oversight. Even after 2006, the Dems didn't have a working majority in the Senate. At 51-49, they couldn't stop filibusters and they certainly couldn't override a veto unless a significant number of Republicans went along. And, of course, not all Dems agreed with each other, either.
And both are beholden to the financial industry. Obama has raised much more money from Wall Streeters than McCain has, or that Clinton had. But although I think Obama should have pushed for mortgage renegotiations in bankruptcy cases, I think he was right in arguing in favor of the government's bailout plan -- although most of my fellow leftists disagree. Although it was inadequate, it was necessary -- and the situation evolved quickly to where we are now: a new style banking system, with deep involvement by government and with the prospect of consolidation of the banking system into fewer, larger megabanks. Alexander Hamilton would be proud; Ronald Reagan would be in agony.
An apology and a confession
Bill,
I apologize. You're correct in stating that you have been a consistent critic of the Dem's. However, I must confess, your being a "green" colored (pun intended :-) )my perceptions of your well informed considerable contributions. They are quite weighty and a real challenge to read but, that said, I greatly appreciate them. I have to read them over a couple of times to get their full wisdom. Great stuff.
Like Frank's many economic policy contributions I learn much from you. Thank you.
Re: Obama's conservatism. I just think he's a pragmatist. We'll see who he really is after his election, should this nation be so fortunate. His greatest challenge will be herding the Democratic fat cats into a corner, to actually get something worthwhile done. This will be where we see how much political skill he has and how many political chits he has to call in.
Rich
re Obama's conservatism or pragmatism
As long as I'm already here, responding to Jim's old comments, I'll throw in another comment for you, Rich.
Conservative, pragmatic, perhaps they both amount to the same thing -- or we're observing the same thing and framing it a little differently.
I think the circumstances of Obama's life and identity have made him a cautious and pragmatist centrist. It's easy to over-weight his 'progressive' values. Although his community organizing experience indicates that they're there, his story seems to be about negotiating his way across boundaries and barriers, finding connections, avoiding extremes, and resolving contradictions.
Since I start with no illusions and not a lot of expectations, I can say that I'm impressed by his intelligence and temperament. Although I'm not thrilled with his economic and national security appointments, I'm impressed by his confidence that he can set the agenda for all these strong-minded people and I'm inclined to think that he may succeed at it.
Then the question is whether he will govern from the center, where he and they mostly reside, or whether his perceptions and analyses of the realities of the times will lead him toward what people would generally call "the left". I think that such a move, if it occurs, wouldn't be ideological. That's not his way. Instead, I think that dispassionate analysis of the "facts" will show that lefty kinds of policies are more likely to be successful, and in accord with the values we share, than ideologically based policies, whether they be left, right, center, libertarian, socialist, or whatever. (Except, of course, for "Green" policies, where what passes for ideology is simply good analysis based on good science and good values.) --- or make that a :) instead of a ).
If Obama can lead those centrists to the 'realistic left', they would be great for mobilizing broad support -- somewhat on the often-mentioned model of Nixon recognizing China. It's easier for conservatives or centrists to carry out liberal, progressive, or left policies than it is for liberals, progressives, or leftists.
So I'm with you, Rich, when you write "His greatest challenge will be herding the Democratic fat cats into a corner, to actually get something worthwhile done. This will be where we see how much political skill he has and how many political chits he has to call in." Except that first we have to see what it is that he really wants to do.
What I fear is that Obama will overemphasize the use of military force, overemphasize the importance of bin Laden as an individual target, and then wind up getting bogged down as badly in Afghanistan as the USSR did, and the British before them, while further destabilizing Pakistan. Making war is itself the great threat. I wish he'd start off by calling our involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan by their correct names: occupations. The wars were won and supposedly sovereign governments were established. Now our occupation forces are coping with resistance forces. They're not fighting a war. Wars can be won. Occupations of hostile territories can't. Not without unattainable levels of armed force.
Bill
Okay Bill
Thank you for this well thought out reply Bill.You obviously have some familiarity with market concepts that most people do not.
You also seem to be very knowledgable when it comes to older leftist ideology , the kind I argued with my old man about, so I will ask you this. Do you recall Marx saying that a highly developed form of capitalism will be necesary for a perfect socialism to develop? I look at what is happening here and around the world as the Europeans nationlize and I find myself saying "Oh no, I hope Karl Marx wasn't right."
Back to Jim's worries about bailouts and Marx, from October
Jim -- I was checking through old posts that I had meant to answer, got started on, and then never got back to. But since your question is still relevant, I'll take a stab at it.
Although I haven't read great amounts of 'older leftist ideology', I do remember that Marx's view of history included the idea that socialism, as an intermediate stage between capitalism and the ultimate classlessness and statelessness of communism, would grow out of the contradictions, crises, and decadence of capitalism. The socialist revolution, whether through violence or through elections, would happen in the most advanced capitalist societies, after the occurrence of crises which would exacerbate class conflict and then lead to the development by the working class of a true "class consciousness" that would replace the "false consciousness" fostered by capitalist society. (Marx thought that the proletarian revolution could possibly be a peaceful one in England, though he expected that it would be followed by a counterrevolution by the British ruling class. He also thought revolution through the ballot box was possible in the USA and Holland, but that France was too powerfully centralized, bureaucratic, and militarized to be overthrown peacefully.)
"Perfect" socialism wouldn't be Marx's term, since he didn't think of socialism as a final stage of social evolution. Socialism would be the "dictatorship of the proletariat", replacing the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" (aka 'liberal democracy'), with both forms of "dictatorship" using democratic forms or procedures. Marx cited the Paris Commune's 'direct democracy' as a model for democracy within a socialist state but I think that otherwise he never specified how socialism would actually be implemented.
I think that according to Marx's definitions, we haven't yet seen any socialist societies. I think the USSR would have been classified as "state capitalism". Lenin substituted the actions of a revolutionary 'vanguard' for the proletariat's 'class consciousness' which never really had a chance to develop in Russia before the revolution. Or afterward.
It was similar in China, with what amounted to a peasants' revolution. Marx didn't consider peasants and farmers as a potentially revolutionary class -- they were disorganized feudal remnants with no capability of playing a role in the movement toward socialism. All that mattered for him was the bourgeoisie (and the petty bourgeoisie, or our 'middle class') and the proletariat.
SO -- re your worry about "what is happening here and around the world" with nationalization: Marx may well be right some day, but not yet. There's no class consciousness here (although there's some in Europe) even though the USA is about 63% working class. But the popular understanding of the word "class" has been spun so that it has come to refer to income rather than to power. So a well-paid factory worker is considered, and probably proudly considers him/herself, to be "middle class" despite having little or no power at work and despite being subject to being fired or laid off -- in other words, despite being solidly 'working class'.
As for the rescue operation for the US financial system, I wouldn't call it 'socialism'. At best (or worst), it's a mild dose of state capitalism. The US Government has a long history of intervening in business -- mostly to support, protect, and subsidize it, and mostly in a mercantilist way that Adam Smith wouldn't have approved of. However, taking an equity stake in businesses, even if it's non-voting preferred stock that's supposed to be redeemed by the issuers in a few years, is unusual for us. But it's still a form of capitalism: a direct, rather than the usual indirect, public investment in a private firm. Even the Europeans' direct nationalizations fall short of Marx's criteria for socialism. Without 'workers' democracy'/'dictatorship of the proletariat', the state's probably temporary ownership of some banks is just a little heavier form of state capitalism than is our government's forced, panicky, and fumbling experiments. So far, our government isn't taking part in management and is setting rather easy terms in most cases.
If Marx worries you, one thing you might worry about now is the double whammy of falling wages throughout these years of enhanced corporate globalization followed by the deep economic distress of a deep recession or possibly a depression. FDR saved capitalism from itself the last time. This time, if it turns out to be a comparable 'this time', Marx's prediction of a long-term decline in profits that would create the final crisis of capitalism might look like it's being fulfilled. With the populist anger caused by the bailouts (even though this leftist thinks the bailouts make sense in principle if not yet in practice), there's a possibility that something akin to "class consciousness" might grow and flourish. Then, behold! Marx's prerequisites for revolutionary change would be here. The specter of socialism and bolshevism so feared in the 1930s could again arise and scare the CEOs. Could Obama then do an FDR? Or would the security state suppress the surge of discontent?
Interesting times. I hope I'll last long enough to see what happens next. Maybe even write a stirring pamphlet or two....
Bill
Whew, Thanks Bill
Whew, thanks Bill, that was deep. I will have to take some time to soak all that up. Jim
It's a matter of principles Frank
Frank,
Relax. I'm not getting caught up in the Neo-con arguments re: the CRA. I just raised it as on possible example of where the Democratic party may have a credibility issue. I do, however, wish to thank you for the info, I now have another effective argument for my conservative friend who keeps needling me about how Obama is not experienced enough and the programs of the Democraric party can't work.
What I raise here are matters of principle. If we allow ourselves to become too closely associated with the Obama ticket, we risk tying our fortunes to it's success. I remember well the 1982 California election in which Tom Bradley, Los Angeles' 1st elected mayor, looked like he'd become California's 1st African-American Governor, only to lose, largely due to latent racism. Like then I think we are seeing folks tell pollsters they are not racist, but may vote against Obama, for racial reasons, once they get into the privacy of the voting booth.
Yesterday's Washington Post headline noted Obama now has a 10 point lead --in the latest polls. As they note in the piece this probably won't be enough. We'll see.
Additionally our petition may not be necessary. The latest polls show Gov. Palin's approval ratings are falling. The media is vetting her, the public is getting the message. Let 'em fall on their own petard. Even Sen. McCain is getting the message, these negative ads are simply not working because they are, on principle, offensive to the voters.
Let us follow the lead of Sen. Obama and stay out of the mud slinging. His example is very Christ-like.
Additionally, as guideline #4 reminds us, let us not get into an apocalytic frame of mind. The election of Sen. McCain will not be the end of the world.
By getting caught up in the short term political campaign we risk losing sight of our long term goals. Jesus came to address the needs of all humans, the poor in particular. The IPC and CL are will be more effective as progressive Christian organizations if we focus on the campaign by the Neo-cons to repeal all the safe guards put in place by the New Deal. Let us publish our economic policy paper. As your draft has pointed out, the New Deal has very deep religious roots in Monsignor Ryan's work as a Roman Catholic theologian. We need to add the influence of the protestant Social Gospel movement.
By defining the New Deal first in terms of it's religiously based 19th and 20th century history, as outlined above, we can then redefine it in modern days terms, addressing 21st century issues such as; prevention of the need for abortions, to focus on life after birth issues like an intelligent immigration policy, Latino issues, gay and lesbian rights, universal health care, global warming, the international slave trade, preservation of the social security system and medicare, and the like.
In summary, I raise the issue simply to caution against getting caught up in short term political goals and risk losing our long term vision, to lose as our young folks say "our street cred" as a prophetic voice that gives voice to the needs of the poor and the disfranchised.
Let us become the supportive nurturant parent, not the strict father. It seems that the Republican party has adopted the moral view of the strict father and his "YOYO" philosophy, mess up and Yer One Yer Own. "It's God's will that you are poor". Nonsense. I firmly believe Jesus would have us follow His example and be the nurturant parent.
The up side of the current world economic crisis shows the need for nurturant parent philosophy. As a human specie and inhabitants of this globe we need one another, we must protect our home, personal and global. Truly we live in an intimately interconnected, interactive and interdependent world.
Let's discuss this more on tonight's Theology Panel conference call.
Zogby on the Bradley effect
I recently heard Dr. Zogby on WAMC speaking about how at least his opinion as a pollster is that we may be seeing true numbers for Obama. He cited the Virginia senate race iirc, in which the African-American candidate actually got more votes on election day that the polls predicted. He also pointed out that during the primaries the numbers for Obama in the polls by and large were the actual percentage of votes on election day. The exception to that was when Hillary supporters "broke" at the last minute. He claimed that this was accounted for from a group that was clearly not going to vote for Obama, but had until the actual election had intended to stay home.
He may be all wet, but it did sound logical.
If McCain is Elected
If McCain is elected it may not be the end of the world but it very well might be the end of the United States as we know it. There are no major differences in any of McCain's major policies and Bush's. We will continue down the road of unlimited, unending war and unchecked, out of control,deregulated crony capitalism.
It won't be the end of the world. Thankfully.
Jim,
Yes, electing McCain might be the end of the US as we know it, but I doubt it. With Democratic majorites, maybe veto proof, in both houses of Congress, he will be greatly constrained. (And perhaps give his older more moderate stances some political cover). The real challenge will be for the Democrats to get their act together and take affirmative action.
I ask this though. Would McCain's election be such a bad thing? Maybe we need a damn good dose of reality. My only concern is that it set's the stage for the emergence of Gov. Palin. However, even she is seeing her parochial small state world views being vetted, for the better, on the nationl political stage.
The Democrats have long championed free will but have come up short, IMO, on the responsiblity end. We, as a nation, have been in an long state of imbalance between free will and responsibility. There's no need for me to go on about this, I've stated my views many times before on this. The Democrats share a good share of the blame.
I'm just advising us to take the higher moral road, to follow Jesus' example of moral leadership. I advise we publish research clearly informing/reminding our nation of the 19th and 20th century religious foundations for FDR's New Deal and revise and update it to meet the needs of the 21st century, based on current and ancient Christian tenents.
Let us not blow our "street cred" engaging in political campaigns; that drag us into the muck and mire of politically inspired campaign strategizing.
The more I see Sen. Obama in action, the more I admire his self restraint. I think he models good Christian behavior.
Take heart. The Chinese symbol for crisis includes the symbol for opportunity. Carpe diem! Let us seize the day and move forward with good hearts and minds into a better, albeit a more challenging, future.
Rich
Re:end of the world
I generally agree with what you wrote Rich, but I do think the election of a Democrat instead of a Republican would make a significant difference. I think this is because their difference in ideas do matter. When Bush came into office 8 years ago, he was so intent on doing things differently than Clinton that the Onion, a satirical newspaper, ran the headline, "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over'". It's a funny headline, but it sadly turned out to be true.
McCain is one of the few Republicans that I actually respect. And I think on global warming and immigration, McCain has some good ideas. But on the economy and on foreign affairs, he offers nothing different than Bush. I see you're point when you write that when we engage in the campaigns of electing a party or become too closely identified with the Democratic Party, we get some of the mud of the political combat. I too admire Obama for his restraint.
Crossleft consists of Democrats, Green Party members, Nader supporters, and Christians in various parts of the Left. Some may be wary of Obama's moderate positions. But I think everyone in the Left has an interest in Obama being elected rather than McCain. Jesse Jackson said in a speech in the Democratic National Convention in 1996 that a progressive public policy requires two ingredients- an enlightened President and an energized electorate. He said:
"In 1932, Roosevelt did not run on a New Deal platform. He was the best option. The workers at the plant gates, they were the answer. A combination of an enlightened President, an energized electorate- that's the coalition.
In 1960, Dr. King chose Kennedy over Nixon. Neither ran on a public accomodations platform. That came from Birmingham. In 1964, neither Johnson nor Goldwater ran on a Voting Rights Act platform. That came from Selma.
When we, the people, coalesce with an enlightened President, we can change America, from the bottom up, from the grassroots to the treetops, for the better."
I'll add a knock on Obama
In all this bailout frenzy, and other economic panic, I haven't heard him talk about the truly poor, just the suffering of the middle class. And I've heard nothing this campaign about extreme global poverty and the Millennium Development Goals. There may be planks in the platform addressing these things, but as a prophetic Christian voice, we should be asking for more attention to these things which we must believe are close to the heart of God.
I'm also consistently disappointed at his acceptance of violence as a solution. I realize that it is a pipe dream to expect any major party candidate to eschew military options, but I did hear Nader this weekend say that we should pull out all our troops in Afghanistan and pour in money to support social structures. That sounds more Christian to me than anything I've heard from the major parties.
Class; American Exceptionalism
Right, Ian -- but no one mentions even the working class, much less the poor. And when any candidates uses the word "families", it's always "hard-working families". A toxic preferential bias against the poor is built into the standard political rhetoric. So, perhaps, the less said the better. Gloss over them rather than beat them up verbally.
That also connects with the question of Iraq reconstruction and our budget deficits. Obama joins in the complaints about Iraq not using its current surpluses for reconstruction while we spend so much money there. No one mentions that we broke it and it's our moral responsibility to pay for the damage and for rebuilding, regardless of what Iraq does with its money.
I also shuddered when Obama echoed Palin's paean to American Exceptionalism, saying that he too believes that "America is the greatest force for good in the world" and that he believes in Exceptionalism. I reluctantly cut him some slack on that since, with the attacks on his patriotism, any attempts at nuance or redefinition of nationalist sentiments would be a killer for him.
And nationalist sentiments leads us directly to the issue of violence. Any approximation of Christian non-violence is another disqualifier for high office, even when reason might lead one to believe that peaceful methods could well be the most practical ones.
use of force
First of all, as we've said before, Nader is an egotistical figure who rather than lifting new leaders up, runs for President to hear himself speak.
Secondly, there are times when the use of force is appropriate. I think Afghanistan is one of those places given how terrible the Taliban in governing and how they harbored someone who attacked our country. I also think force would be appropriate in the Sudan if it were to end genocide in Darfur.
I know some among us are complete pacifists which I think is fine for your personally. I don't think its realistic for a nation state and I myself subscribe more to just war theory.
Disagreement
Steve, I think you and Frank are both wrong. That's all I have time to say right now as I have to see a doctor about getting some stitches removed. But if I didn't say something right now, I might not get back to the subject later. This way, I force myself to follow up.
Later,
Bill
Disagreement #1 - Nader
Steve,
Revenons a nos moutons....
First, it bothers me when people confidently assert -- without evidence, qualification, or nuance -- a personal opinion as an objectively based judgment. And I think that's the norm -- I haven't seen a lot of people regularly using "imo" in writing or speech, anywhere.
So that leads me to ask what your basis is for saying that Nader is any more or less egotistical than anyone else who runs for high office. Who among all the presidential candidates this year can be presumed not to have a strong ego? Anyway, how does one distinguish between a "healthy strong ego" and rampant "egotism"? Is it just that "strong ego" means that I like or agree with the person while "egotism" means that I don't?
Similarly, what's your basis for reducing his motivation to the desire "to hear himself speak"? Are you that well acquainted with his psychology and his goals? And what about lifting up new leaders? Have you examined his history carefully enough to determine that he's not developed potential new leaders? Could not his v-p candidate, Matt Gonzalez, be held up as someone who is being lifted up for future leadership?
My take on Ralph Nader is that, indeed, he has a big strong ego. According to people I know who've worked with him, he's difficult. Not much of a team player. As a candidate, he didn't mesh well, organizationally, with the Green Party. As an employer, I've heard and read that he's awful -- he expects everyone to be as zealous for his causes as he is and to work endless hours at low pay. At a personal level, I "like" Obama - and Biden too - more than I do Nader. I'd rather spend time with either of them discussing and arguing about our political differences than spend time with him. Still, I was one of his warm-up speakers at a campaign rally in Albany in 2000 and I'm generally in sync with his views, although I'm farther left.
As for why Ralph runs, I look at him at this stage of his life less as a candidate-type or an organizer-type than as a prophet-type. (No, I'm not elevating him to Biblical prophet status, just talking about social roles.) Candidates hope to win; prophets hope to spread the word. At a time when the institutional and media framework for presenting political-social-economic-environmental views is very narrow, those who don't fit within what can arguably be fairly called the Republican and Democratic wings of the larger corporate party have to scramble to try to bring 'outside' views into the public square. It's hard -- I've had some direct campaign experience trying to do that in Mississippi, Wisconsin, Illinois, and New York. But that's another story.
I like to think of how Ezekiel, with all those symbolic actions and demonstrations of his, must have seemed crazy to his people. Some kind of yippie on spiritual steroids. But such are prophets. Zealots. Fanatics. Most don't get their messages out very far or to good effect. Some do. Some even make a good living at it, though I suspect that those who do are likely to be impostors. But I think Nader's record shows that he's real, whatever one thinks of his strategies or tactics or effectiveness.
Although Nader isn't running as a Green, Greens tend to welcome his campaign. One of our north counties' Green Party chairmen is working for Nader, not for McKinney. Nader's coming to Albany to speak this week and the Greens, including the NYS co-chair, an Albany resident, are promoting the event. The idea is that neither of us is going to get a lot of votes, but there's a synergy in our messages. If together we get 5%, it might dent the consciousness of the Democratic Party just a little bit. Perhaps what's more important, is that both campaigns are part of a process of recruiting, engaging, and "lifting up" young leaders.
More later, on Afghanistan and just war theory,
Bill
we've hashed out Nader before
We've hashed it Nader out before which is why I was reassert the claim from previous conversations.
If Nader were serious about movement building towards a third party he would stop putting himself up for election to office, but rather support the Green Party candidate. If the Green Party has supported his candidacy in the past, why isn't he supporting the McKinney-Clemente ticket? It would be like Hillary running on her own rather than support Obama. We would have called her selfish and self-centered if she did such a thing. That's why I call Nader selfish. Get behind the African American women third party ticket if you really think there should be a more progressive alternative to the Democrats. The fact that you and other Greens give him a platform seems ridiculous to me as it only divides your very limited number of votes in the Green column.
Nader an egotistical guy who wants to maintain his own relevancy in American political life which has long since passed from being effective whatsoever. If you think he's been effective, prove it. I would put the burden of proof of Nader's value back on you, Ian and others who tend to support him. Is there any evidence at all that Nader is affecting policy making within the Democratic party? If there isn't, than really isn't much value to him running yet again. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that anyone in mainstream politics has paid attention to the guy since the 1970s.
If you do believe he affects the party by taking away votes, than I go back to my argument about 2000. He did in fact take away votes that cost Al Gore the election which has been absolute disaster for the country. How anyone thinks that an Al Gore presidency wouldn't have been better for all the issues that Nader espouses is crazy.
Enough of Nader, we're entering the Obama era.
Agree on Nader
I want to point out that I'm supporting McKinney-Clemente, not Nader-Gonzales, I only mentioned Nader because his position was one that I had heard this weekend and it differed significantly from the major party candidates. I agree with your analysis Steve, Nader is thoroughly independent, refusing to join a party. The only reason he ran on the Green ticket in the past was because the Greens were willing to endorse him. I've heard him say that he'll accept any party endorsement. He clearly is not about building up any particular party. What he is working for (and I believe making progress on) is slowly getting the system to change to open up the door to full ballot access for all parties. I stubbornly support the Green Party because I want to help make the Greens a viable alternative and if I kept caving to pressure to support the Democrat because of the fear of the Republican I would be damaging the Greens by delaying (indefinitely) my support.
Pull Out of Afghanistan?
Now I really know that Nader is out of touch with reality!
Unlike Iraq, which was the wrong war, Obama is dead-on correct that we must refocus on defeating the Taliban, a job GWB dropped the ball on. But more than winning the war there, we must win the peace there. One reason the Taliban was able to seize control in Afghanistan was because after the Soviets left, we lost interest. Instead, we should have been investing in building schools and infrastructure there. A better standard of living does a lot to pull the rug out from under violent fundamentalists.
I did not represent Nader well
What you suggest about infrastructure, etc. IS was Nader was saying. His point was that we should spend on money on that instead of the military. Our soldiers create targets and animosity. Local police create and keep the peace in their land, that is what we should be supporting ASAP. If you wanted to hear Nader's view precisely, I heard it on an interview with Scott Simon on Weekend Edition Saturday on NPR, I'm sure it's archived on their site. Likewise, I'm sure his position is laid out on his web site.
local police?
Ian,
Do you really think that its realistic for local police in Afghanistan a country where the central government remains weak and the warlords still roam to be able to police their country and rid it of Taliban and Al Queda forces? A country with a much stronger central government and very strong military in Pakistan can't seem to do it.
I think its great if we progressives are idealistic, but I think we also must inject some realism into our thinking, especially on matters of foreign policy.
Not Quite
Before yo can build up the infrastructure and win the peace, you've got to first provide personal security. That means defanging the Taliban -- something the Bush administration failed to do in its rush to war in Iraq.
Millennium Development Goals
Rev. Ian,
Let's talk more about this on tonight's Theology Panel conference call. You raise a good issue.
Rich
Can't make the call
Sorry I won't be on board for the call, I'm off to the local conservation commission meeting.
Careful Rich, Don't Buy Into the Right's Frame on the CRA
Before you cite McCain and his claims about investigating the Dems and the CRA, I strongly suggest that you read this piece* from Media Matters entitled, "Myths and falsehoods about the purported link between affordable housing initiatives and the financial crisis." It effectively debunks that whole argument -- with links to primary sources to back up their arguments.
*in case hyperlink does not work: http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100022?f=h_top
Thanks Frank
Thank you Frank for this link explaining the history of what has went on involving Fannie and Freddie. As conservative economic theory self destructs I have been hearing this argument more and more. I assumed it was a spin as the conservative battlecry for decades as been "De-regulate" but had no real data or talking points. This article from media matters nailed it pretty well.