Compassion in Politics: Christian Social Justice, Non-Profits, and Life Theology

I also found this intriguing…..

StumbleUpon did a recent update and I ran across these fun designs while doing a flickr stumble with Firefox. I’m now a much bigger fan of using StumbleUpon to navigate the web. (image credit: stricklin family and counterclockwise)

This week’s Time magazine features an analysis our “Our misguided farm policy.” To me it seems to be a metaphor about how government policy often favors big business to the extreme detriment of local and small businesses :

But farms still cover most of our land, consume most of our water and produce most of our food. If you eat, drink or pay taxes–or care about the economy, the environment or our global reputation–U.S. agricultural policy is a big deal.
It’s also a horrible deal. It redistributes our taxes to millionaire farmers as well as to millionaire “farmers” like David Letterman, David Rockefeller and the owners of the Utah Jazz. It contributes to our obesity and illegal-immigration epidemics and to our water and energy shortages. It helps degrade rivers, deplete aquifers, eliminate grasslands, concentrate food-processing conglomerates and inundate our fast-food nation with high-fructose corn syrup. Our farm policy is supposed to save small farmers and small towns. Instead it fuels the expansion of industrial megafarms and the depopulation of rural America. It hurts Third World farmers, violates international trade deals and paralyzes our efforts to open foreign markets to the nonagricultural goods and services that make up the remaining 99% of our economy.

The system is overbloated. Grunwald points out:

But farm lobbyists say that simply highlights the continuing need for a safety net–and if the net happens to catch Scottie Pippen, Chevron, Ted Turner and 1,324 recipients in bucolic New York City, that’s a small price to pay.

And rolling back subsidies could help feed Africa:

Another unintended consequence: we don’t make West African cotton farmers poor, but our subsidies encourage overproduction that slightly reduces world cotton prices, making millions of them slightly poorer. An Oxfam study found that eliminating our subsidies could boost their average income as much as 5.7%, enough to feed two of their kids for a year.

Also Grunwald highlights that “the top 10% of subsidized farmers collect nearly three quarters of the subsides.” This seems to be a rather egregious example of a misguided and mismanaged policy which systemically favors the rich over the middle class farmer. Isn’t it time to roll back some of our subsidies or at least reallocate them so that they are more just? Thoughts on the situation? Thoughts on the article?

A recent Newsweek article on the convergence between evangelicals and progressives focuses on policy specifics on the abortion issue. Newsweek interviewed Reverend Joel Hunter a nationally prominent evangelical:

Why are you endorsing the efforts of progressive groups, like Third Way, which are pro-choice, if you are a conservative on the pro-life question?

Because there is emerging, out of the evangelical movement, a desire to make progress, even if we don’t get it 100 percent our way. I think you are seeing that there is now more of an openness to work toward real, practical solutions that will at least reduce the number of abortions in the country. Bills like [the Reducing the Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act, introduced by a pro-life congressman and pro-choice congresswoman, with input from Third Way] support women who decide to carry their baby to term. For a pro-life person like myself that means one more baby gets to live. For the pro-choice movement that means one more woman gets supported in her decision. We’re both reaching our goals without compromising our ideals. What the Third Way does, and what attracts me as an evangelical, is that they are the kind of think tank that can do the research and work on legislative goals to offer solutions evangelicals can get on board with. In recent years all you’ve been hearing from both sides is “This is where we stand.” And so nothing gets done.

If you’re interested in seven specific common grounds strategies on Abortion, you can check here.

This is just deplorable.  Is Alberto the “yellow cake” we needed on this administration? (And thats just since the midterms in 2006)Ps.  I haven’t followed this story…but this is pretty shocking as well. 

Interesting article by George Lakoff at the Huffington Post about progressivism and centrism.
<

span style=”font-size: 13px; text-align: left” class=”Apple-style-span”>

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas — the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.

The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on.

Empowerment include roads and bridges; public education; government-developed communications like the internet and satellite communications systems; the banking system; the SEC and institutions that make a stock market possible, and the court system, mostly about contracts and corporate law. Progressive government makes business possible. No one makes any money in this country without the progressive empowerment by government. A progressive foreign policy is not based solely, or even mainly, on the state — about the “national interest” defined as our military strength and GDP. Progressive foreign policy focuses on individual people’s interests as well as national interests: on poverty, disease, refugees, education, women’s and children’s issues, public health, and so on

Thoughts? Paul Rosenberg posted “Constructing Liberal Identity, Values, and Narrative For a Political Realignment” along similar ideological lines at Open Left. Any opinions on either perspective?

We’re a nation at war, but oddly enough it seems that no issue highlights the ideological divide in America more than the abortion issue.  While our sons and daughters are in Iraq, the cultural divide that is bubbling below the surface is polarizing.It seems that despite our ideological divide that solutions to the complex issues still have to be found.  

These women can’t be ignored and they can’t be swept under the rug and they can’t be told to be silent.  So if the America of the blue states and the red states truly care about a solution to the schisms that pervade the politics of the abortion issue, the Search for Common Ground have come up with 7 key personal and policy issues that could form the groundwork for some common ground on the issue that transcend the ideological antagonism and cynicism that pervades this hot botton issue:

1. Promoting both male and female sexual responsibility
2. Fostering equality and respect for women
3. Strengthening parent-child communication
4. Reducing the number of teen pregnancies
5. Improving prenatal and maternal care
6. Supporting and funding the choice of adoption
7. Working together to remove the conditions that lead to abortion 

So what do you think?   Is common ground viable?  Are there other issues that serve as a springboard for viable common ground?What do you think about this quote from Becky Garrison in Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church, “If we truly want to follow the teachings of Christ, let’s put down the picket signs and download a copy of this manual.  it seems to me we’d be all better off dialoging instead of demonstrating?” 

I ran across this post about God’s grace and love this morning and thought I would share it with my readers. It seemed particuarly telling in the context of political disagreement and conflict.

“One Lap Top Per Child..Then What?” focuses on “third world” development projects in the context of faith. Michael Kruse and Tiim Bulkeley provide interesting insight into the future of globalization via development.

Third, you might check out my post on Open source politics from today.

Any thoughts about any of the above??

Given that I’m packing up I’m a little short on time. Faith and Public Life posted this article from the USA Today about “Who Speaks for Evangelicals?”

The article juxtaposes the values of the old. vs. new guard on faith issues;

True, on cultural touchstone issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, there is no difference between the Old Guard and the New Guard: All are equally opposed. But the younger pastors want to broaden the evangelical agenda beyond what Hunter calls “below the belt” issues linked to sexuality. For them, people of faith should engage issues such as AIDS, Darfur, economic justice, war and peace, prison reform and human trafficking. For Dobson and Robertson, this represents an unacceptable dilution of focus and a squandering of political capital.

Its very troubling for me that Dobson and Robertson see this as in issue of cold and calculated political capital, rather than voting based on a Biblically principled consideration of the issues. Thats seems like a crystal clear case of prioritizing politics over faith. So Biblically sound values play second fiddle to the mechinations and fluctuations of the latest polling data. Sweet! I’m sorry if that seems entirely upside down to me. Making your principles sacrificial lambs, doesn’t seem like a sound brand for the church or any personal endeavour, for that matter.

Second, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend author of Failing America’s Faithful was on the Colbert Report recently and talks about how the Religious Right has “shrunk God” and misses large sections of the Jesus’ message that deal with social justice, poverty, and love.

On a side note, this is a curious article in the Washington Times. It seems as if the Right is may begin an intentional strategy of minimizing values issues, as they see their strength and monopoly on values lost to the democrats on values issues.

What do you think? What do you think about this new movement of individuals determining for themselves how to vote? Do you think the second article was written to steer feligious right in a crisis? Do you see an old vs. new guard emerging? Is this a good trend? Does it potend good things for people of faith? What are God’s politics? For lack of a better term What Would Jesus Do? What did you think of what Colbert or Kathleeen Kennedy Townsend had to say? Compelling? Correct?

Just a quick link to “A New Vision for America’s Security” a recent Boston Globe article by former head of homeland security Tom Ridge about the role of international engagement in politics. This speaks to the large foreign policy gap between the GOP and the Democrats on foreign policy in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and in other vital areas of national security. Ultimately, this speaks both to the recent post-debate Obama v. Hilary divide over diplomacy as well. Check it out it as well as this Chris Bowers article at Open Left, “The United States: An Empire in Permanent Decline?” Chris Bowers is a democratic consultant, member of the netroots, and formerly of mydd.

The Huffington Post assembled a group of folks to blog the debate and fact check the debate.    We used Campfire and PBWiki to collaborate.  This was a great exercise.   Here are my takeaways….  

• Virtual Collaboration = Good. This collaborative process was a lot of fun, very personal, and everyone in our virtual media watch room agreed it was a great experience.

• Rocking Collaboration Technology!  I highly recommend both Campfire and the PBWiki is exploding with bells and whisltes to make it a true multi-media.  They have a very easy to use “how-to” video that guides you through the easy to use tech.  Also, 25 Ways to Use PB Wiki may inspire some ideas about wiki use.

• Self-organizing Woes-Unfortunately, since this was so new, we didn’t have any model for what they were looking for.  I wrote for the lower part of a wiki, and other folks wrote for the top half–so there was a little bit of disconnect.  I didn’t feel folks needed my editorial voice to click on links.

• No Model-A model or simple instructions (2-7) detailing what you need is imperative for high quality, consistent looking materials.

• Just a tip-I arrived about an hour early in one of the three collaborative chat rooms, which allowed us sketch out formal responsibilities.  This was critical.

Have you had any experience good, bad, or indifferent with collaboration technology?  Campfire?  Something from Google or 43 folders?  Do you think this technology could be better used in a particular area?  Have a great link about its potential or taking advantage of it?

Don’t get it twisted, there is a growing recognition that the 2008 election is going to be a values debate. The cover story for next weeks’s Time is “Leveling the Praying Field” focuses on how democrats are courting progressive evangelicals. Dems are increasingly turning their back on Kerry’s failed strategy of being ignoring and otherwise being silent on values issues. Evangelicals are increasingly trending more independent and democrat. The authors, Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy point out:

The best handicapper of the religious vote is political scientist John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, who has studied the voting habits of the country’s 55 million Evangelicals. The most conservative white Protestants, he says, are all but off-limits to the Democrats. But then there are more than 22 million voters he calls “freestyle Evangelicals,” worried about not only their eternal souls but also their kids’ schools, their car’s fuel efficiency and the crisis in Darfur. In the past, those voters may have leaned Republican in part because the GOP has been far smarter about presenting itself as friendly to people of faith while painting the Democrats as a bunch of sneering, secular coastal élites.

But the Republican lock on Evangelicals may be breaking. The percentage of white Evangelicals who self-identify as Republicans has declined from roughly 50% in 2004 to about 44% this past February, according to Green. Now the number is closer to 40% as more Evangelicals choose to label themselves independents. “There is a loosening of the Republican coalition, particularly among people under 30,” Green says, “but it is not yet a movement toward the Democrats. It is a small but real change.”

Reflections:
What do you think of this trend? What do you think of the article? If a politician has a faith foundation, how should they frame their faith? Which candidate is doing the best job of framing their faith? Which Democratic candidate most authentically deals with faith issues? Which Republican candidate?

Resources:
Religion and Politics 2008 @ the Pew Forum
http://pewforum.org/religion08/

“How the Democrats Got Religion” Time Coverstory
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642890,00.html

Video Highlights of the Democratic Faith Forum Debate
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/06/video-highlights-from-candidates-forum.html

Video of the Faith Forum
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/06/video-candidates-forum-full-co.html

Transcript of the Forum at CNN
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html

Georgetown Professor Jacques Berlinerblau wrote “God Vote” for the Washignton Post
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2007/07/the_religionindustrial_complex.html?hpid=sec-religion

Pew Forum Update: Potential Support for Presidential Candidates Among Religious Groups
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=223