Power Corrupts, part one: I Think Your Politics Are Stoopid

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." [Mark 10:42-45]


Maybe I'm just getting weak and shallow in my old age, but I've come to realize that the more attention I pay to politics, the less I seem to behave like a disciple of Jesus. The fruit of the Spirit, which is supposed to be evident in the life of a Christian, just seems to shrivel up and die. I'm less patient, less compassionate, less loving, less likely to turn the other cheek (which isn't easy to begin with).

I've also noticed that such seems to be true of a lot of other people as well. And I hear all sorts of arguments for why the neglect of such things is excusable (if not acceptable) in light of the current direction and climate of American politics and culture (e.g., the situation we face is too grave and perilous, and the issues too important, to bother with such niceties). Yep,...when Jesus said to love your enemies, he didn't mean your political enemies. Those idiots on the other side are trying to destroy God's Kingdom...the New Jerusalem...*ahem*... America. If we don't stop them, who will?

More and more, I am appalled at how often political involvement seems to consume and corrode peoples' souls. I think a lot of people get involved intending to make some kind of positive difference. Unfortunately, by the time they go through the seemingly unavoidable gauntlet of partisan abuse, that must be endured to rise to any level of influence, they're so warped by the ordeal that they've forgotten whatever high-minded ideals they may have started out with.

Such corruption is troubling enough, in and of itself. But it troubles me even more when professed Christians succumb to such corrupting influences. And one doesn't have to be a mover & shaker to be affected.

I believe that any political system devised by humans will inevitably become corrupt and fail. And, looking at history, humanity's track record doesn't exactly inspire optimism about our chances of finding a political solution to the ills that beset our country and the world. That doesn't mean that some systems aren't better than others, or that it's wrong for Christians to get involved in trying to make things better. But when allegiance to a political party or ideology creates the kinds of angry divisions between believers that have become so commonplace that most don't even notice, then something is seriously messed up.

So I've finally stumbled upon a solution that's so simple I think even I can manage it.

I think your politics are stoopid.

That's it.

Republican? Stoopid. Democrat? Stoopid. Independent? Stoopid. Socialist? Libertarian? Anarchist?
Stoopid. Stoopid. Stoopid. ___________? Stoopid.

You may sincerely believe that if Jesus were here today he'd be a Conservative Republican – with all the rugged individualism and pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps ethos that goes along with that – but you'd be hard pressed to square such thinking with Jesus' call for living sacrificially, and in humble dependance on him and each other.

You may sincerely believe that if Jesus were here today he'd be a Liberal Democrat – with all the take from the “haves” to give to the “have-nots”, and the-ends-justify-the-means ethos that goes along with that – but you'd be hard pressed to square forcibly taking from some to give to others with Jesus' call for loving your neighbor as yourself, and in humble dependance on him and each other.

The truth is that every political/economic ideology that attempts to appropriate Jesus for the cause ends up with some Frankenstein's monster of a Jesus. The Jesus of the New Testament is offensive to everyone at some point, so bits of him have to be lopped off. It's easy to claim affection for an amputated Jesus. But, in reality, he eventually managed to alienate just about everyone that claimed to believe in him. He taught a message that was so radical – and such a threat to those in power (both political and religious) – that it got him nailed to a cross. And the fact that he wouldn't stay dead put the powers of this world on notice that the rules of the game had changed completely. He said that following him would not endear us to the movers & shakers of this world, but would (more likely than not) do just the opposite. He never promised his followers a nice, safe, comfortable life (in fact, he seemed to promise just the opposite). But that Jesus doesn't always make us feel good about our ambitions, so we build ourselves a new Jesus (one created more in our own image).

Jesus said that if anyone wanted to be his disciple they should deny their self, take up their cross daily and follow him. But when was the last time you heard of any seriously involved politico actually doing anything remotely like that? It usually comes down to the old, “Well, sure I'm a Christian – but we have to fight fire with fire, if we're going to get this country headed in the right direction. The other side must be defeated by whatever means necessary. The stakes are too high to blah blah blah....our children's future...blah blah...vast blah blah conspiracy...blah...war on blah...blah.....bleh....” zzzzzzzzz...

Another troubling thing is how cynical Christians become who get really committed to some political ideology. I think cynicism is a coward's refuge, so it was very disturbing to feel it taking root in my own mind. Of course, cynics rarely admit there's anything wrong with such a mindset. Or they attempt to excuse it with the old, “You're damn right I'm a cynic – I've seen too much!” But the truth is, they really haven't seen enough. Cynicism seems, too often, to be the result of a constricted view of the world – it's what happens when the soul doesn't get enough fresh air and exercise.

Christians aren't to be myopic about the world. The bible claims that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God – and even encourages a healthy skepticism – so we have no excuse for being surprised by how bad people can be. But, unlike most cynics, neither can we sit looking down our noses at how stupid other people are. We are those other people. I don't know about you, but I am often astounded by the stupidity of the dude living in my mirror.

Jesus said that anyone who wants to lead should serve sacrificially. He said that following him would bring his followers into conflict with the way the rest of the world operates (even in America). But what most politicians call service doesn't look like anything I could picture Jesus or the early Christians doing. When politicians talk about the sacrifices they make while in office, it often sounds about as convincing as when celebrities complain about how rough it is being rich & famous. And far too many politicians seem to leave office much wealthier than they went in (funny how that works).

Again, I'm more concerned about the corruption of professed Christians – we're supposed to be living by a different set of priorities (as citizen's of another kingdom). Political power, financial gain, and all the perks and prestige that go along with being a mover & shaker are things that followers of Christ are to be wary of. Power really does corrupt, but it seems like too many Christians think themselves immune.

The Old Testament offers some powerful lessons in just how easily power corrupts. Every system of governance that Israel tried eventually failed, and no amount of prosperity ever seemed to be enough. But in the New Testament, Jesus came to set the world on its head and give it a spin. He was a big disappointment to those looking for a political/military Messiah. Instead, he initiated the most subversive revolution this world has ever seen. He called the powerless to follow him (the outcasts, downtrodden, drunks, whores, crooks, tax collectors, children), while seeming almost indifferent to the powerful and elite. He said it's easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle, than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. So why, then, do so many Christians today seem to think of their wealth and power as Gifts of the Holy Spirit? Is our hubris that delusional – or is it, perhaps, just a pathetic excuse to sample forbidden fruits, thinking feigned ignorance or false magnanimity will fool God into thinking our intentions are good?

Jesus said the world would know his followers by their love for each other. But sometimes that love seems to be disguised as political porno (we've gotta screw them before they screw us). Theological and doctrinal disagreements can get ugly enough – but nothing can compare to a good, old-fashioned, politically partisan free-for-all. Grace, Mercy, and Love-for-one's-enemies are usually the first casualties of such conflicts (and are even looked upon by many as weaknesses). Good humor is rarely to be found (unless it is a “Kick Me” sign, stuck to an opponent's back with a knife). Turning the other cheek is only done when speaking out of the other side of one's mouth. We let the concerns of the world overwhelm our faith in the One who has overcome the world. We've decided that Jesus' way just doesn't get things done fast enough (and with nearly the degree of punishment our “enemies” deserve).

When more attention is paid to the words of pundits than the words of prophets; when Christians are more interested in political elections than God's elect; when Ron Paul gets Christians more excited than the Apostle Paul; when military casualties are confused with Christian martyrdom; when revolution is preferred to revival; when American patriotism becomes synonymous with Christian discipleship; when we can't tell the difference between the sin and the sinner; when a Christian can say, with a straight face, “Give me liberty, or give me death”; when the least-of-these are reduced to some-of-those; when protest replaces prayer; when canvassing replaces witnessing, then something has gone terribly wrong. And I think it's evidence that we no longer believe God is really on the job.

Jesus said we can't serve God and the things of this world. Maybe some people think they can pull it off (and maybe they can), but I'm not one of them. I found it necessary to give one or the other priority in my heart and mind, and it seems to have made a big difference in how I relate to those with whom I disagree strongly on various issues – not to mention improving my attitude in general. And (much to my surprise) it's been easier than I expected. So...

I think your politics are stoopid. I just can't take them that seriously.

Oh,...and in case anyone's wondering:


I think my politics are stoopid, too!

You Don't Know, Jack.

In a recent Commentary at CNN.com, professional curmudgeon Jack Cafferty wrote a piece entitled “Obama a leader who actually leads” that I couldn't let go unchallenged. So here's my Comments on his Commentary.

"What a welcome change to feel like someone is running the country instead of running it into the ground."

Since when is using a bigger, more expensive, bulldozer to dig your way out of a hole not running something into the ground??

"President Obama has done more in eight weeks than George W. Bush did in eight years -- unless you include starting a couple of wars."

A.) Doing "more" doesn't necessarily mean doing better. And...

B.) Waging an undeclared war against the U.S. economy is hardly something to be proud of. ("Ahhhh, I love the smell of bail-outs in the morning."--from Obamalypse Now*)

"While the armchair quarterbacks second guess the new president, he gets up every day and does things, lots of things."

But are they good things? Are they the right things?? And not all of the critics are "armchair quarterbacks" -- some are quarterbacks for other teams. And some are more capable quarterbacks from his own team (they're the Kurt Warners to his Matt Leinart). He just happens to be the quarterback for the team with the ball at the moment.

"Whether it's creating commissions for women and girls, ordering the investigation of President Bush's use of signing statements, or jamming a huge stimulus package through Congress, the man is working his tail off. And he seems to be loving every minute of it. It's almost as though our president was born to do exactly what he's doing. He's leading, and boy, is that refreshing."

One hardly knows where to begin with this one:

A) Yaaaaay, more government commissions -- like the ones that looked into the artificially inflated prices of music CDs and cable TV. They found that both industries lied to keep prices artificially high, and many 'experts' predicted the prices of both would then come down -- but they only went up. (I can't wait to see what awesome things they'll spend a lot of money on not being able to do for women and girls.)

B) Man, they just can't let Bush alone, can they? Wonder how much they're spending on this witch hunt? (I can only imagine what they're paying for pitchforks and torches.)

C) Remember the movie Deliverance? Remember what the in-bred rednecks did to Ned Beatty? That should be your mental image whenever anyone mentions the Pres. "jamming a huge stimulus package through Congress". (Let the squealing begin.)

D) The man may be "working his tail off", but that's hardly encouraging if he's going the wrong way! Jack Cafferty may have worked his tail off on his commentary, but that just made it an even bigger load of crap than it would have been otherwise.

E) So Barack Obama was born to be the Casey Jones of the nation's economic locomotive? That's hardly comforting. And what Jack sees as "leading", looks more like driving to me (and driving recklessly at that). If Jack finds it "refreshing", maybe it's because he's chosen to mindlessly stick his head out the window like a big dumb dog.

"I remember many times when Bush was in office wondering who the hell was running the country. Then he would appear somewhere in front of a handpicked audience to utter some banalities or say something utterly stupid and I would be reminded. I don't miss him."

Yeah, Obama never appears at staged events; never babbles incoherently when speaking without a teleprompter; has never uttered anything remotely banal or stupid. Good call, Jack. Glad to know you're really paying attention. (And how much does CNN pay you?**)

"That's not to say President Obama hasn't stubbed his toe here and there. Signing that omnibus spending bill with all those earmarks in it after campaigning so hard against pork was probably a mistake. The opportunity was right there to send that bill back to Congress with a note that read, "I told you I am against earmarks and I meant it. Now do it over and send me something clean." Nancy Pelosi's head would have probably exploded, but the American people would have been ready to crown him king."

Stubbed his toe?!?! It's more like: shot himself in the foot, and now he's trying to amputate his own leg.

First of all, he already seems to think the American people have crowned him king. And as for signing the Porkulus Bill -- EVERYTHING about how it was handled violated a campaign promise. If G. W. Bush had done a similar thing within his first couple of months in office, you'd still be howling about it.

"There are serious questions about whether Tim Geithner has what it takes to solve the banking crisis. Either nationalize the big ones in trouble or let them fail. It doesn't seem that just continuing to hand them money is working."

You think? Wow,... Thanks for the keen insights into the obvious there, Jack. Sheesh. And how drunk does one have to be to think that nationalizing banks is a good idea?

"Better background checks on some of his appointees would have saved him some embarrassment. There's no excuse for asking someone like Tom Daschle with his problems to do anything."

An inexperienced Walmart manager making such inexcusably bad decisions would probably be fired on the spot. Some of the new administration's screw-ups are beyond embarrassing -- in fact, they're actually kind of frightening in the level of casual incompetence they display. (And you've got the nerve to imply that 'W' was stoopid?)

"But the point, I guess, is this: President Obama is attacking our country's problems on several fronts. He's got ambitious ideas on how to solve them, and he communicates a sense of calm and confidence to the rest of us as he goes about his business. Will all his ideas work? Of course not. But if you throw enough stuff at the wall, some of it will stick."

That's the point of the whole piece? Seriously?!? Such ridiculously cavalier sentiments about something so serious is appalling (obviously, conservatives didn't corner the market on shallowness).

Ambitious ideas (even when communicated with "a sense of calm and confidence") aren't worth squat if they're the wrong ideas. If your doctor scheduled you for a heart transplant, when all you needed was a tonsillectomy, then all the "sense of calm and confidence" in the world wouldn't make it a good course of action -- no matter how "ambitious".

And the throwing stuff at the wall approach is A) insane -- when it's already pretty obvious what the problems are, and B) worse than worthless, when all you're throwing is shit (whether any of it sticks, or not).

"And at least I don't go to bed at night worried that I'll wake up in the morning to find out we're about to invade someone."

Of course not, because we're the ones being invaded. And now it's simply a matter of trying to consolidate power. And like most political true-believers (of all stripes), you think once the revolution comes, you'll be among the blessed chosen who won't be negatively impacted by the ensuing chaos.

"The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Cafferty."

Oh, if only such nonsense were limited only to Jack.



[*Obamalypse Now is only a movie in my head.]
[**To CNN: I'll work for a third of Jack's salary, and only be half as stupid (at the most).]

Take,...eat...

Well, they've finally decided on the communion wafer to be used along with the kool-aid being drunk by the worshipers of the new messiah.

I Remember...

I remember people thinking that Jimmy Carter would be a great President because he was a born-again Christian.

I remember people wringing their hands in despair, convinced that Ronald Reagan would get us into World War III.

I remember people thinking that George H. W. Bush would not raise taxes.

I remember people thinking that Bill Clinton would neither balance the budget, nor pursue welfare reform.

I remember people believing that George W. Bush would reign in big government, and be fiscally conservative.

It's both funny and sad how often people fail to meet expectations (whether good or bad), but that's what happens when you put too much confidence in flawed, fallen human beings.

Why do people expect more from their government than they do from their friends, their neighbors, or their selves? We want a government that is fiscally responsible – but, too often, we are not fiscally responsible ourselves. We want honesty and integrity in our elected officials, but we often don't exhibit those virtues in our own lives. Elected officials are generally a reflection of the people who elected them. In other words: we get the government we deserve (even if we don't vote).

It's as if Christians in America have developed spiritual dyslexia. Jesus said to "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." But the excessive pessimism and optimism, about exactly how President Obama will govern, seem to indicate that far too many professed Christians are rendering unto Caesar the things that are God's – namely, the faith that our ultimate prosperity or poverty are dependent on government legislation.

I'm not saying that getting involved in politics (or social causes) is pointless or wrong. But if you find yourself in a state of hopelessness or despair, because your candidate didn't win – or just the opposite, because your's did – then perhaps your political or social cause has become your religion.

Whether he is a success or a failure as Commander-in-Chief, only time will tell. But one thing is certain: he's neither the Messiah, nor the Anti-Christ. And those who think he's one or the other are bound to be disappointed, either way.

McCabama Reflux

I'd like to thank the current candidates for making me so completely disgusted that I'm not sure I can vote for either one without wanting to jump in front of a speeding semi. They should all be very proud of themselves, because that's no small accomplishment. I mean... I sat through the movie Waterworld, man! So my intestinal fortitude is pretty impressive. But this political season has just been too much (and it's lasted even longer than Waterworld - which I would have thought impossible).

Obama is Change We Can Believe In. And, of course, by change they mean the same old thing. Same old policies. Same old rhetoric. Same old ask what your country can do for you/ make the rich pay their fair share/ corporations are evil/ class warfare/ blah, blah, blah...

McCain is... What the heck is McCain's campaign slogan? He used to be the guy that was always pissing-off his own Party. I respected that, even if I didn't always agree with his positions. But the downside of being a 'political maverick' is that, if you ever decide to run for Prez, you're going to have to appear less of a maverick in order to get enough people to vote for you. So McCain keeps tripping over his own feet, like someone trying to dance to a tune he's never heard.

The problem with having to try so hard to please so many to get elected is that, by the time you get into office (if you get in), you've practically forgotten who you are. You can't be an agent of change if you're policies are the policies your Party has always espoused (and your runing mate is a 35 year career political insider). You can't be considered a maverick if you're going to practically sell your soul to try to please the faithful of the very Party you've so often offended (especially when that Party wasn't particularly thrilled to even have you as their candidate).

So here's a novel idea: be men of integrity, dammit! Tell the truth - often and consistently - about yourself, and about your opponent. That's change I can believe in. That's being a political maverick.

I'd like to hear the candidates consistently condemning the vile rhetoric and outright lies that are being used by their supporters. I'd like to hear somebody say, "If you're one of those people that claims ______ about my opponent, stop it. Period."

Let's hear Sen. McCain stop in the middle of a rally and confront anyone who shouts "terrorist" or "kill him" about Sen. Obama. Start repudiating the tactic of citing Sen. Obama's middle name as if it were a cuss word. Tell people like Sean Hannity to "SHUT THE HELL UP!" And stop telling lies (or approving of lies being told) about your opponent.

Let's hear Sen. Obama stop playing (and rebuke those who play) the race card. Start condemning those morons who call (or wear t-shirts that call) Gov. Palin a cunt. And stop telling lies (or approving of lies being told) about your opponent.

Sen. Biden, stop just making up stuff that never happened. Gov. Palin, stop talking nonsense, like Sen. Obama was "pallin' around with terrorists."

Good grief, people - you're supposed to be adults. So start acting like it.



[I'm Ricky, and I approved this message.]

Obama Strikes Out

I'm no genius, but here's why I question Senator Barack Obama's fitness to be president.

First: He goes to a church for 20 years, but claims he didn't know his pastor was a bigot. How, exactly, does one manage that? His excuse seemed to be that he was absent on the days his pastor was preaching crap. But, come on - what are the chances? Every time?? The odds against that being very likely have got to be astronomical!

Also, he had referred to the pastor as his mentor (which is defined as "a wise and trusted counselor or teacher"). How does one not know their mentor is a bigot? It would be kind of like not knowing your dad was in the Klan.

If he doesn't know his pastor and mentor of 20 years is a bigot, then how can I trust his instincts when facing some of the duplicitous heads of state he'd be dealing with as president?

Secondly: He asked, in a speech, that if America were to become a nation comprised solely of Christians, whose version of Christianity would we live by - James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's (and Heaven help us, if those are the only options)?

He then went on to quote some Old Testament legal codes, to try to illustrate the hypothetical delimma (e.g., "which passages of scripture should guide our public policy - should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay but eating shellfish is an abomination?"). Then he referred to the Sermon On The Mount, saying that it's "a passage so radical that it's doubtful our own Defense Department would survive it's application". He then said, "So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles, now. Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

Unfortunately, it's obvious that Senator Obama hasn't been reading his Bible either. Although (like the aforementioned Dobson and Sharpton), he's obviously not above grabbing a handful of verses, pulling them out of context, and using them as political stones to throw at those who disagree with him.

The problem is that Christians are no longer bound by the Old Testament laws. Jesus' atoning death on the cross broke the need for those holiness requirements. All who find new life in Him are freed from the demands of the OT laws - so no true Christian should be involved in trying to re-establish that from which Jesus died to free us. And the fact that Senator Obama (as a professing Christian) wouldn't know such a basic Christian doctrine kind of bothers me. And if he does know - but treats the holy scriptures of his own religion so cavalierly for cheap political gain - then I think that bothers me even more.

Another problem is that Senator Obama fails to acknowledge the huge differences between the kind of slavery that existed among the Israelites, and the slavery that most people today think of when they hear the word. Either he's ignorant of those differences - or he knows, but is counting on the American public being ignorant of them. Either one is inexcusable for someone wanting to be President of U.S.

And as for the Sermon On The Mount: It is radical. So radical, in fact, that none of us (including Senator Obama) survives its true application (which is probably why Jesus asserts that a new birth is in order).

I do not think Senator Obama is a closet Muslim (and I think professed Christians need to stop spreading such silly propaganda - and should rebuke those who persist in spreading it). But if he is so ignorant of the basic tenets of his own religion - or is so willing to use his religion's holy scriptures as political fodder - then it's kind of hard for me to trust him to make right and wise decisions about some of the complex domestic and foreign policy issues that face our country.

The third strike against Senator Obama was his statements that Senator McCain and his supporters would try to scare voters by pointing out that he [Obama] "has a funny name...and he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills". In other words, he basically called Senator McCain and his supporters racists. That kind of crap has gotten really, really old. And I think the charge tells us more about Senator Obama, than it does about Senator McCain.

It's kind of ironic, too, since Senator McCain also had the race card used against him (but by whites) in the 2000 South Carolina primary, when Repubican opponents tried to stir up trouble by pointing out that he has a daughter that ain't quite as white as he is (I guess implying that he had defiled his race by mingling with a non-white). Turns out Senator McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh - but some of his opponents in SC implied she was really the product of an illicit affair with a black woman. ooooohhhh...

It seems like Senator McCain just can't get a break - apparently, he's either too white, or not white enough.


There are people in this country that oppose Senator Obama simply because he's black. There are people in this country that support Senator Obama because he's black. Both kinds of people are idiots - his race should have nothing to with it. His words and actions should be the only reasons you support or oppose him, or any other candidate. (And not things taken out of context, or grossly exaggerated, like the nonsense going around about him not saluting or respecting the National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, or flag.)

Politics in this country have always been dirty (those who think it's a fairly recent developement are woefully ignorant of our nation's - and human - history). It's a sad, but true, fact. But there are some things that everyone should agree are wrong, no matter what your political leanings. Unfortunately, people only seem to get upset when it's the "other side" doing it - which is why things aren't likely to get better any time soon. We get the government we deserve. Whether you vote or not, the government generally reflects it's people. But it's not likely to change any time soon, because changing the character of government requires a change in the character of the voters - and most people won't even consider the possibility of changing their character, because that would require admitting they were wrong about something (which most people are loath to do).

I registered Independent (you had to pick something), so I wouldn't feel obligated or pressured to support any candidate based on their Party affiliation. So, just because I can't support Senator Obama, don't assume that means I support Senator McCain. Obama striking out doesn't mean McCain is doing any better.