Fewer Broken Pieces

Michael Moore on the financial upset:

The struggle between what is best for the people and what is best in order to line the pockets of Wall Street will continue. 150 million Americans combined can’t even match the wealth of the richest 400 Americans. All we have is our vote. And there will always be more of us than them. We will all need to become more politically active if we are going to get our democracy back.

All we have is our vote?  Really?  Aren’t there other forms of political expression, such as, I don’t know, making documentary films?  Michael Moore knows something about that, I think.

They Dodgers are taking a 2-0 lead over the Cubs back to Los Angeles.

This is the fourth in my series of reviews of the essays collected in Electing Not to Vote: Christian Reflections on Reasons for Not Voting. G. Scott Becker provides an essay entitled “Serving by Abstaining: Karl Barth on Political Engagement and Disengagement.”

Ironically, this essay did more to convince me that Christian participation in the state is positive (and consequently that voting might be a good idea) than any other.  Becker did so by explaining Karl Barth’s “christological concept of the state.”  In particular, this formulation played out in Barth’s support for resistance to the Nazi movement.  Barth argued in Church and State that the state, functioning properly, would not only act as a check against evil, but would also act as a means for preserving the freedom necessary for the proclamation of the Gospel.  Therefore the church is “not to resent or endure the political order as a necessary evil” (40), but to pray for its righteous fulfillment of its divine role.

Here Barth and I agree in my basic problem with the concept of Christian non-participation in government.  If God has ordained the government as his avenger (Romans 13), and if we are commanded to pray for our leaders, how could Christians possibly justify non-participation?  Arguments against Christian participation in the state strain credulity in my opinion because of the clear biblical witness.

After the first part of the essay, I was wondering how Becker would come around to recommend non-voting in light of Barth’s views.  Thus far he done a fine exposition of what might be an argument for voting.  However, while Barth was vocal in opposition to Nazism, he did not take sides in the Cold War.  Becker understands Barth’s non-commitment to a communism or capitalism as a form of protest against the political situation.

There were important differences between World War 2 and the Cold War in Barth’s thinking.  For example, as opposed to Hitler marching into Poland and France, in the Cold War “war was not inevitable, and the church had a duty to say so.” (47)  It was a confrontation of ideologies.  Moreover, there was no clearly righteous side, as judged by Barth’s rubric of Gospel-freedom.  By picking a side in the Cold War, he would be supporting the hubris of either side instead of supporting the divine mandate of the state.  History has vindicated Barth’s position.  War was indeed not necessary, and Europe has remained at peace (though tragically the big ideas were played out in wars in Asia).

Next Becker translates this situation to the current political situation in the US.  Partisan bickering is self-serving and not an expression of the divine mandate.  Therefore, not voting “is a testimony to a better way of doing politics and a rebuke against a system that has abandoned its high calling.” (49) Since it would be witness against the state, a non-vote must be both corporate and public.  The essay ends on this point.

Becker’s essay is especially helpful for those who do not necessarily come from an Anabaptist tradition (as opposed to most of the other essays in this collection).  It is rooted with the Reformed understanding of the divine mandate of the state, yet it allows for non-voting as a legitimate expression in a democratic regime.  He does not rule out voting altogether, but notes that disciplined abstention for a season may be the best way for the Church to bear witness against a malfunctioning state.  I also agree with Becker that the American partisan politics is self-serving and not in line with the state’s role as the executor of divine wrath.  Therefore I agree with him that a principled Christian non-vote might be a good choice this year (and perhaps in the future).

Here is how Oregon’s House delegation voted on the so-called “bailout”:

1. David Wu - No
2. Greg Walden - Yes
3. Earl Blumenauer - No
4. Peter Defazio - No
5. Darlene Hooley - Yes

Representative Hooley probably broke with the rest of the Democrats because she is retiring (she will not have to face the voters on this issue).

The lowly Aloha Post Office is the subject of some legislation sponsored by David Wu this session:

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3800 SW. 185th Avenue in Beaverton, Oregon, as the “Major Arthur Chin Post Office Building”.

It passed and was signed by the President May 7, 2008.

P.S. GovTrack is fun and can lead to much wasted time.

Gordon Smith last ran for reelection in 2002.  That was a mere 3 weeks after he voted yes to authorize the Iraq war.  He has since, quite famously, turned against the war.  It has been six years, so the expectation is that the public has forgotten about his position on the issue.  I wonder, however, how many Oregonians have a long memory.  I have not forgotten.

The Dodgers have drawn the Chicago Cubs in the first round of the playoffs, since the Brewers won the wildcard and the leage-leader does not play against its own division in the first round.  This is going to be an uphill battle.

The partisan hacks on tonight’s debate:

My candidate clearly won the debate.  He was poised, prepared, and had the best answers.  The other candidate scowled, was sweaty, and got angry.  Obviously my candidate won the debate, but of course the mainstream media will say the other guy won.

Such analysis is ubiquitous on the internet at this hour.  It is uncanny: both sides can with all earnestness say their man “won” the debate.

Apple’s iPod product is popular, but its abilities are fairly limited.  Want to play back Ogg Vorbis files or customized the user interface?  Too bad.

Thank goodness for Rockbox.  Rockbox is a free-software alternative firmware for most iPods and many other portable digital music players.  I happen to use it on my 2nd generation iPod Mini, and I love it.  So, if you are feel like trying something new on your boring old iPod, check it out.

Sarah Palin says we shouldn’t “second-guess” Israel’s actions:

The Republican VP nominee recently said that she would never “second guess Israel if that country decided to attack Iran.” Speaking with Katie Couric of CBS News, she stood by that quote.

“We shouldn’t second guess Israel’s security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one,” she said. “Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn’t second guess their efforts.”

The Alaska governor said the United States should be free to relay its rights our concerns, but “we don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth,” said Palin. “It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are.”

Emphasis mine.  Can it really be reduced to a matter of good guys against bad guys?  I am more than a little nervous about the prospect of Israel getting a free pass in its international conduct today because of the Holocaust.  It seems here that Palin is advocating for the “Bush doctrine” of preventative war.  Israel’s “opportunity and ability to protect itself” in the context would come in the form of an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Should the US support an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program?  Some will argue so, but I am disinclined, since Israel’s own nuclear weapons program is an open secret.  Still, Iran’s current president has done more than his fair share of threatening Israel, and the recent launches of long-range missiles are disconcerting.  That being said, surely there is room for second-guessing, no matter which nations are involved.  As a matter of fact, the US protested when Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 (and this was when Ronald Reagan was in office).  Even the US under a Republican president has a history of second-guessing Israel’s military actions.  So Palin here espouses a more extreme position than many in US politics.