Kristol Monday: Potshots at the Left, Backhanded Compliments for Obama

It seems that every Monday Bill Kristol's column in the New York Times just spews right-wing propaganda into the media atmosphere while dismissing liberals as "the intolerant left" and who, at the same time, belong to "finger-wagging nanny-state-nagging liberalism." Oh, Bill, does it ever end? Calling the left "intolerant" loses some of its value when one of the frontrunners to take over leadership of the RNC distributes a CD to RNC members with a track entitled "Barack the Magic Negro" and then defends it. But these potshots take away from Kristol's main point: Obama is having an inauguration soon and the fact that he picked Rick Warren for the invocation means that Kristol does not completely hate Obama.

As always, however, Kristol's column has some factual issues with it (or more just some common-sense issues). To begin with, for some reason he absolutely despises Maya Angeloum, but for an inane reason. Take this gem from his column: "I still remember watching Maya Angelou read 'On the Pulse of Morning' at Bill Clinton's inauguration in 1993 — and thinking that American culture really was in a state of irreversible decline, as she indulged in that multicultural cataloguing." It seems Kristol took offense when Angelou decided to list a variety of ethnicities and religions in her poem about America - you know, that great melting pot of diversity where people are different but all distinctly American? What does the Statue of Liberty say? "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. / Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, / I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Yet celebrating differences is an indication of a society whose culture is in "irreversible decline." And Kristol calls the left intolerant.

Then Kristol goes on to praise Abraham Lincoln, saying that his "actions exemplified the prudent and skillful pursuit of a principled end." Do not get me wrong; Lincoln was a great president and one of the main reasons that the Union remained a union at all, but to say that his Emancipation Proclamation and his fight to end slavery was based on principle - and not politics - is a bit misguided. First, his Proclamation freed slaves in the southern states during the Civil War, essentially doing nothing because he had no control over it. That would be like a president today saying that all political prisoners around the world are now free - a nice gesture, but there's no way to enforce it. Secondly, Lincoln was far from an equality seeker. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates he was quick to point out that he did not want to "set the niggers and white people to marry together" when Douglas hinted that Lincoln wanted an "amalgamation" of the races. Additionally, Lincoln stated that "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races." To top it all off, Lincoln stated, "I am not in favor of Negro citizenship." So while Lincoln saw slavery as a horrible institution - anyone with a speck of morality did - he was not exactly fighting for equality between whites and blacks.

Then there's Kristol's backhanded compliments of Obama. Don't take Kristol's few positive words of Obama as genuine praise. Kristol thinks Obama may be a bit too proud, saying that Obama should have the "Good Book" opened up to Proverbs 16:18, which reads, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Then he goes on to criticize those who point out Obama's smoking habit, right after he pointed out Obama's smoking habit. Mentioning something by saying you should not mention it sets up the thinnest of smoke screens to take a critical shot at someone - you want to criticize someone, just do it; don't give me this passive aggressive crap.

Kristol is a symbol of the old Republican party - hawkish (while being misinformed) with too much of a focus on religion. He even says, "And having Warren there will, in fact, be a welcome reminder of the strides the evangelical movement and religious conservatives (broadly speaking) have made in recent decades." Many believe that religion is killing the Republican party and the party's true symbol before the religious right took over during Reagan's administration - Barry Goldwater - would agree: "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." If Republicans want to wrest the White House away from the "intolerant left" and nagging liberals, they need to change their outlook and what it means to be "conservative." Until then "Barack the Magic Negro" and Bill Kristol columns will have to do. Peace.

Photos - Bill Kristol on the "Daily Show" (Huffington Post), Honest Abe (Civics Online), Barry Goldwater (Official Site of the Presidential Medal of Freedom)

Obama's Choice of Warren Calls for Look at Gay Rights in America

Since Barack Obama announced his choice of Reverend Rick Warren (the same man who hosted the Saddleback Forum early on in the campaign) to give the invocation at his inauguration in January I decided to take a look at gay rights in America. Many gays and people on the left cried foul, given Warren's conservative social views - specifically his anti-gay marriage stance (he was a staunch supporter of Prop 8 in California). While Warren certainly holds views that those on the left do not, his choice should not be that surprising to those who have followed Obama's stance on the issues. Obama never has been a proponent of gay marriage, so his choice of Warren should not be "shocking" to anyone. He supports civil unions for same-sex couples, but marriage itself is a thing he would like to leave up to religion and to the states. Obama is not in favor of banning same-sex marriage, but he certainly is not fighting for its practice. Obama does make good points on gay marriage - points I will be making in this post - but he will not go as far to say that gays have the same right as straights when it comes to matrimony.

Many people point to religion to say that gay marriage is wrong, immoral, or sinful. They point to things like Sodom and Gomorrah and the biblical laws that seemingly ban homosexuality. That's fine, but I bet these same people would decry against the backwardness of things like Islamic extremists enforcing harsh, out-of-date Sharia law in Middle Eastern communities and the treatment of women, etc. How is invoking a book older than the religion of Islam itself to deny a right to a group of people that much different than Islamic fundamentalists using Quranic/Hadith law to deny rights to a group of people? Has humanity not changed drastically since the days of the Bible? Do these same folks who invoke the Bible argue for the relationship between man and wife as laid out in Genesis 3:16 (that the husband will "rule over" the wife)? There are plenty of biblical laws that would make no sense in today's society; we cannot just pick and choose the ones we want to justify things we do not agree with.

Others point to the societal ills that will abound if we allow gays to marry. To begin with, they say that the "sanctity" of marriage will be destroyed, the whole concept will become meaningless. Seriously? How does allowing two people of the same sex to marry ruin any part of marriage? I would say folks like Newt Gingrich, Vito Fossella, Larry Craig, Tim Mahoney, David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer (the list goes on and on) ruin the sanctity of marriage. Why is it legal to cheat on your wife, but not for two gays to get married? The other hypocrisy of gays ruining marriage is the divorce rate in this country. We often hear that 50% of American marriages end in divorce. From what I can glean, this is a misleading statement, but the divorce rate in this country seems to be somewhere between 30-40%. Now I may be old-fashioned, but I thought that marriage was a "death do us part" deal, not a "til I decided you changed or did not become as successful as I thought or just get sick of you" thing. The logic behind allowing people to leave a marriage being okay but allowing other people to enter a marriage being wrong is mind-boggling. So again I pose this question: Why is it legal to break a martial promise/bond/covenant/whatever you want to call it, but not for two gays to get married?

It seems that America as a whole has a problem with homosexuality. This is a country that had sodomy laws up until 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down such legislation as unconstitutional. If you are openly gay, you are not allowed to serve this country in its armed forces. There is no federal legislation outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation, which leaves that matter up to the states. This means that in any state that does not have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, it is legal to not hire someone or purposely discriminate against someone based solely on their sexual orientation. And, as a good friend of mine pointed out to me recently, the United States refused to back or sign a United Nations resolution decriminalizing homosexuality. The only other nations to not sign the resolution were Russia, China, the Catholic Church, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In the context of human rights, not exactly the best company to be in.

So back to the original point about Obama and Warren - why is it that surprising? Obama touted the fact that he could work across the aisle, and Warren is pretty socially conservative (something Obama is not). They both agree that gays should not expressly be allowed to marry, but beyond that they have little agreements. Barack Obama, in my opinion, did not do anything that outrageous - he chose a reverend who is quite influential and will help him bridge the gap between social conservatives and his future administration. This is Obama making good on a promise to work with a diverse group of people. Not everyone is going to agree with everything he does, but, as long as he is not overtly hypocritical, moronic, or plunges this country into unnecessary wars, that's just politics.

Photos - Obama and Warren (Washington Post), Larry Craig, a symbol of hypocritical homophobia (Wikipedia)

The Saddleback Civil Forum

John McCain, Rick Warren, and Barack Obama
at the Saddleback Civil Forum (The Economist)

My first reaction to watching the Saddleback Civil Forum was, "Wow, these questions are amazing and the one-on-one setting makes it impossible for the candidates to squirm out of a question non-chalantly." My second was, "The questions are amazing." Rarely will the mainstream media figureheads (I'm looking at you, Stephanopoulos) put on such a fair and well-planned debate. I had my doubts due to the whole Evangelical thing, but Rick Warren was affable and kept the pace of the questions going very well. I would like to see more of these types of forums in the future.

All was not perfect, however (nothing in life is.)  I thought Obama did very well and while McCain was much friendlier and more at ease than he usually is, both candidates said things that were worrisome. Let's begin with Obama.

Obama handled one of the first questions very well: the question regarding what is your biggest moral failure. He was open and honest about his rebelliousness as a teen and young man (specifically mentioning drug use and drinking, etc.). I thought Obama's best answer came after being asked about abortion. Saying that he believes in a woman's right to choose, he expanded on the issue by saying that being pro-choice does not mean that one is pro-abortion. He said that he would like to see the number of abortions in this country decrease. I wish he had expanded and gone into how to decrease abortions (real sex education, not abstinence education, etc.), but he was in front of a mostly Evangelical crowd.

Some things Obama said worried me: To begin with, the fact that he said "Christ died for our sins." I understand that that is the fundamental concept of being a Christian, but just the phrase brings nightmarish memories back of church as a kid and the Sunday school teacher telling my brother that all of his Jewish friends were going to hell for not believing in Christ. If that is what Obama truly believes, I have no problem with that as long as he does not try to push it on people who do not believe it (which is the majority of the world). I trust Obama will not try to turn America into a "Christian nation" or say that God wants him to be president. To each his own.

Barack Obama and Rick Warren (Monsters and Critics)

Another problem with Obama's answers was his gay marriage stance. He is for civil unions, but not for gay marriages. This is confounding, as one is political and the other is religious or spiritual. Under the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Religion), people have the right to establish and practice whichever religion they want to. If that religion says that gays can marry, and Obama is for the political aspect of a civil union, then why should gay marriage be outlawed? Who is anyone to judge a religion's view on who can or cannot be wed before a supreme being? In Christianity I thought God was the final judge on everything, not a politician. If a church wants to perform a gay marriage (and it is their right not to) and civil unions are legal, then why do we not call it gay marriage? It's splitting hairs.

On to McCain. One thing McCain did very well was be more approachable to the average viewer. He was not as stiff and cold as he has been in the past. I also give him kudos for answering the moral failure question in an honest manner (I did not think he was going to mention the failure of his first marriage.)  I would have liked a little more honesty (the fact that he cheated on his first wife, then married his mistress, Cindy McCain), but it's baby steps.

On the flip-flop question McCain was horrible. "Drill now" is a pathetic mantra to have. No matter how many times people are confronted with the facts, McCain still uses this tired campaign schtick. Experts have said that it will take MORE THAN A DECADE to get the oil out of the ground and there may not even be enough of it to significantly change oil prices. That means if McCain is elected twice in a row WE WILL NOT SEE ANY OIL FROM OFFSHORE DRILLING DURING HIS PRESIDENCY.

John McCain and Rick Warren (New York Times)

McCain also said that Ronald Reagan was a great president and that he won the Cold War without firing a shot. This could not be further from the truth. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about the Soviet-Afghan War or the Nicaraguan Contras (to name two campaigns that Reagan was elbow-deep in) knows that this statement (which McCain uttered twice) is offensively incorrect. We helped build Bin Laden's Tora Bora cave system, we sold the Taliban and the Mujahideen Stinger missiles and other weapons (which would later be used against our own soldiers after 9/11). It is scary to think that McCain would even think about saying this on national television and expect people to believe it.

McCain also showed his short-sightedness when it comes to what problems our country faces. He stated that radical Islamic extremism is the "transcendental issue of the 21st century." To begin with, anyone who has read a history book knows that we'll get a new enemy in 10-20 years. In the 1930s and the 1940s it was the fascists, in the 1950s-1980s it was the Communists. In the 1990s it was anti-government nuts in rural America. Now it is the radical Islamic extremists. Who knows who it will be next. Additionally, Islamic extremists are not the only problem for this country. I would say the energy crisis, the broken prison and justice systems, a tattered immigration policy, 8 years of flouting the Constitution, the meth epidemic, etc. are all issues that should be as high if not higher than radical Islamic extremism (don't forget that the largest terrorist attack in America before 9/11 was perpetrated by two American-bred white guys). But "Let's fix the prison system" is not exactly as strong a rallying cry as "I'll follow Osama to the gates of hell if I have to." Good luck with that one.

Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA (New York Times)

I have other issues with both candidates, but simply do not have the time to go over all of them. Maybe later. All in all, I thought that the Saddleback Civil Forum went very well and I would love to see more debates set up in that style. It was good to see the candidates answer tough questions that they rarely like to talk about (moral failure, abortion, etc.). Some of the answers were very good, others were very scary, but it certainly helped inform me as to where the candidates stand exactly on issues, and I hope it helped other people as well.