- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Disagreeing agreeably is a talent a lot of people haven’t mastered. This is particularly evident in politics the world over, but the American presidency seems to attract more than its share. Politics is always wont for critical thinkers who are not critical.
Every American President knows he’ll be condemned if he does and condemned if he doesn’t. It comes with the territory, so as Harry Truman said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
But there’s something especially perverse, particularly from a Christian point of view, when the loyal opposition disrespects not only the policy but the person.
Recently, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain referred to former Speaker of the House Democrat Nancy Pelosi as “Princess Nancy.” We all know “sticks and stones will break our bones, but names will never hurt me.” But really, is calling another national leader an intentionally sarcastic name “presidential”? And Cain of all people, who is battling stories about old sexual harassment allegations, should avoid commentary that smacks of chauvinism.
President Obama is, as president, regularly excoriated in the Republican, conservative, and sometimes general press or social media. Again, this comes with the territory. President George W. Bush certainly caught more than his share of the same. But what’s disturbing is the number of times the President is attacked as a man not as a political leader with particular policy views.
Talk show conservative Rush Limbaugh has called President Obama “Pharaoh,” “Jackass,” “Triple Double Oreo,” and worse. You expect this from an info-tainer, but not so much we’d hope from political leaders. Republican presidential candidates have a list of their own derogatory names for the President and for each other, and the President’s been known to use a few of his own for them.
The point, though, is not silly names but an attitude of genuine disrespect toward the individual and by implication the Office. Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and Fox News commentator and comedian Dennis Miller are both known for a no-holds-barred approach. But in terms of the President, both men have consistently expressed respect for the Obama the man. Both men have repeatedly said on television that they like the President, appreciate how he treats his wife and daughters, are glad for him and the country in the sense that this democracy did indeed elect a Black president, and actually enjoy being with him. This respect in no way prevents them from slicing and dicing, daily, President Obama’s political views and actions. Sadly, O’Reilly has actually been criticized by his conservative constituency for expressing favorable views of Obama the man.
Respecting a political leader, no matter who they are, and particularly the President sets a tone for disagreement, discussion, and debate. It sets a tone for potential common ground, agreement, a working consensus, governance.
I for one am glad President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner have golfed together. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill used to do political battle throughout the day, than meet for drinks and stories at day’s end. They were political foes and personal friends.
I like how President Obama carries himself, projecting an image of sophistication and class. I’m especially glad that his relationship with his wife and daughters, like President Bush before him, is genuine and a good model. I like it when President Obama gives eloquent speeches, even when I often disagree considerably with his policy perspectives.
I will likely vote for someone other than President Obama in the next election because I do not agree with the direction he is leading or non-leading the country. I do not embrace many of his philosophic or political/economic views. But I like the man and I respect the Office.
So I’m weary of character attacks leveled at the President by people who should be able to martial more astute arguments supporting their views than cheap name-calling or ad hominem jibes.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
There’s something inherently problematic in the term “Christian politics.”
While God’s will is stated in Scripture, good people, including Christian people, disagree on scriptural interpretation. While God’s perspective on moral issues like lying, stealing, or murdering is abundantly clear, many other contemporary issues are not directly addressed. So which position on a non-addressed issue is the Christian view, and thus, who has a corner on Christian politics?
Of course politicians use Christianity, or at least some affirmation of their fidelity, to promote their agendas and their opportunities for electoral office. These are the “Political Christians,” politicians who glom onto the faith for perceived political advantage. Perhaps some do this out of genuine commitment to the faith, but surely many others do so disingenuously. Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to ascertain in which category a politician falls.
Whether or not politicians openly declare faith or how they do it varies with the political culture of the times. JFK downplayed his Catholic heritage. Jimmy Carter campaigned and won as a southern believer. Four years later, many Christians jilted Carter for Ronald Reagan, thinking he was a better man of faith because of his political views. Both George Bushes and Bill Clinton publicly affirmed their Christian faith. Barack Obama and his 2008 Republican opponent, John McCain, did so as well. For the record, I doubted the latter more than the former, but neither one makes much of a believable case.
All presidents, beginning with George Washington, publicly asked God to bless America, even LBJ and Richard Nixon, two of the most morally bankrupt men ever to hold the presidency.
Perhaps we’d generate more light if we talked about Christians in politics, rather than Christian politics. I believe my political views are consistent with my understanding of the Christian faith, but I must admit that on many issues I cannot prove this. I can only say what I believe. I am a Christian trying to live out my faith, but I cannot claim to live it perfectly. So it is with everyone else.
Seems to me Christians in politics is ideal, while Christian politics is an ideal.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
America Needs More Than Jobs
Expired- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
America needs more than jobs. It needs leadership that truly believes in the innate greatness of America's original ideals and its people. We don't have that on either side of the aisle.
We only have politicians-as-tacticians, people more adept at talking political minutia than vision and destiny. A person who got his or her jollies talking about political processes and various government activities used to be called a “Policy Wonk”—think Bill Clinton. Now, it seems, pols running for office, including the presidency, have all become Policy Wonks, arguing on the stump and in debates about which Republican or Democrat approach to governing is going to—wait for it—“create jobs.” Like that’s going to happen.
Americans need a recaptured sense of who we are and a recast sense of what we’re capable of doing. Not Pollyanna platitudes but, still, some bottled optimism based upon a keen understanding of why life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness produced for decades a culture, country, and economy attracting immigrants from around the globe.
We’ve lost confidence in who we were and who we are. Worse, a lot of Americans, at least media, intellectual, and political elites, don’t believe in who we were.
We have a sluggish economy, but America isn’t so much in an economic crisis as a leadership and hope crisis. We really don’t believe anymore that there can be a “better tomorrow.”
Add to this a crippling debt, which is rooted in our moral decline more than simple economics, and you get our current dilemma. We’re in over our heads and we don’t know what to do next. One thing's certain, though to listen to pols running for President you wouldn't know it: we cannot right the ship without sacrifice. Few wanna-be Presidents are willing to say so.
So, what do we need? America needs leaders with moral character and courage, men and women who believe in what’s best about America so they can help us do what’s best for America. Who will be our Joshua?
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
A host of Wanna-Be-President politicians have declared their candidacy or are expected soon to do so. We don’t know which one will ultimately become their party’s 2012 nominee, but I suggest that the candidates will have a better shot at maintaining (Democrat) or getting (Republican) the nod if they observe these commandments:
1—Thou shalt not claim religious commitment for the sake of poll numbers.
2—Thou shalt not commit adultery, have affairs, hook-up, etc.
3—Thou shalt not mention, much less affirm or encourage, “birther” or “truther” conspiracy theories.
4—Thou shalt not ignore the national debt or the budget deficit.
5—Thou shalt not attack political rivals, Americans all, using vitriolic, vehement, vituperative, vicious, vulgar, or otherwise vile language.
6—Thou shalt not lie.
7—Thou shalt not steal.
8—Thou shalt not use double-talk to avoid answering questions.
9—Honor your father and your mother and every other elder.
10—Thou shalt not equate your political views with The Christian way of doing things.
There’s more, but this is a start. If candidates would just do this much, actually demonstrate that character is not dead, both candidates and the electorate would be the better for it.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm recently tweeted:
"Another guy guv admits 2 cheating on his wife. Maybe we need more women governors. Guys: keep ur pants zipped, for Pete's sake. #Arnold"
Of course Governor Granholm was referring to scandal news plaguing the house of Schwarzenegger wherein he admitted having fathered a child some thirteen or more years ago by a woman other than his wife of twenty-five years, Maria Shriver. And to add insult to injury he’s apparently kept it from Maria and all others since. In other words, he’s lived a lie for more than a decade in front of his wife, four children, and the California citizenry.
Some have suggested former Governor Granholm would not have made this comment relative to a Democrat. But I think this is unfair and sells her short. Plenty of people are fed up with male politicians’ blatant sexual infidelities demonstrating their lack of character if not also lack of wisdom, and to feel this way isn’t about partisanship.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is just the latest secret sex saga. We’ve been subjected to a running tally of these stories: Dominique Strauss-Kahn—the former IMF chief recently accused of rape, Eliot Spitzer—the former New York Governor now turned CNN anchor (I still don’t know what CNN is thinking)—cross-state-lines prostitute scandal, Mark Sanford—the former South Carolina Governor with an Argentine “soulmate,” David Patterson, John Ensign, David Vitter, James McGreevey, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, or way back, Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy. Even John McCain and Newt Gingrich get into the act if you check their record. And there are many more both present and past if you reach back even further, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, FDR.
So it may be that former Governor Granholm is correct. Maybe we do need to elect more women political leaders.
It's not to say that women are invulnerable to infidelity or so-called philandering. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in birds-n-bees to recognize that women were involved in nearly all these stories (McGreevey being one exception). But still, I'm with Governor Granholm on this one.
I’m ready to give women with character an opportunity to lead.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Good public discourse, open dialogue and discussion in the marketplace of ideas, is a staple of democracy. Without it there is no chance for government of, by, and for the people.
For good public discourse to take place certain requisites or attributes must be put in place within the body politic.
--People must embrace, then instill in culture and government, basic human rights: freedom of worship, freedom of speech, even expression, right to life, law, and order based on a public moral consensus.
--People who believe in objective truth.
--Freedom of expression must be recognized, protected, and preserved in law.
--People must respect others, which is to say, they must listen, which is to say, a certain discourse etiquette must be established.
--Absence of decorum in public discourse is a seed of the destruction of the marketplace of ideas.
--Discourse depends upon not necessarily an educated public, in the sense of formal schooling though this is good, but upon an informed public.
--For discourse to result in general wellbeing, that is, for democracy to work and for it to last, people must cultivate moral virtue, that is, a capacity to recognize good and to choose it—this only comes in acknowledging the place and purpose of religion.
--For discourse to function freely and productively to good ends, people must understand that disagreement can serve the good if it is based upon critiques of ideas and not upon criticism of ones holding the ideas.
--The degree to which disagreements degenerate to people upon people attacks is the degree to which disagreements no longer serve the public good.
Discourse that is little more than shouting matches, i.e. an absence of decorum, is what most radio and television talk shows have become. It is what much of electioneering or political campaigning has become.
Calling leaders in the political opposition derisive names or using cartoons and other materials to demean members of the political opposition in the name of humor does not credibly advance ones ideas. It’s actually a show of weakness. If you can’t win a point in discussion via moral suasion than you attack the other speaker or posture loudly to out shout the other. Weakness.
It seems today that if you disagree with someone you are ipso facto believed to be attacking the person. So it goes in our politically correct culture. Yet meanwhile and ironically, verbal attacks upon people with whom you disagree have become the order of the day. The American body politic desperately needs to rediscover the values and rules of engagement for discourse modeled by the Founding Fathers.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.