Economics and the eternal present

Here is an area that seems to be strangely driving the economic bus: economics as a present issue. Since Reaganomics (classically referred to then opponent, pre-VP George H.W. Bush as voodoo economics) and its indelible stamp on the financial landscape of the world—leading to serious economic, environmental, and labor issues in growing parts of the world while financially and morally bankrupting our entire American system—we have been led down the rabbit hole and into a world stuck in the eternal present. Quaint remembrances of the past (which includes last year or last quarter) serve to “inform” us in that we know only that we need to make more money. Asking about the future is useful only in that we are eager to make more money tomorrow than we made today.

This sense of the eternal present means that businesses and communities rise and fall with such speed and destructiveness that we celebrate their arrival with extraordinary fanfare and mourn their loss with the occasional “Huh, you remember what used to be there?” Long term prospects are not front page news, nor are they welcome, as they do not indicate a maximization of the present.

But our obsession with the eternal present actually devastates the present, as it never gives an accurate picture. This isn’t just in a sense of history, but even in current financial markets.

Think about our economic structure: we are led by monthly totals, tabulated after a month is over. We go with quarterly accounting and projections. We look at sales “this time last year”, which only gives you insights into the buying habits of last year’s consumers. At the same time, projections and speculation is the territory of future insight. Attempts to listen to what people want today only leads to future production of a product that was wanted yesterday.

A specific example of this is the automotive industry’s obsession with immediate gratification. It is well documented that American manufacturers created a new class of vehicle (SUV) to shore up lost market position from the 80’s and that it has put them into a horrible position with fuel economy as the #1 consumer interest. What I am interested in is that very lack of planning, interest in, or support for the fact that there would even be a tomorrow. Short-term projections gave way to a long-term strategy of keeping their fingers crossed that people would keep buying SUVs. Even in 1999 as Honda and Toyota were putting the first hybrids into the American Market (Insight and Prius), Ford and GM had no interest in joining them. It took years for Ford and GM to even begin the process of researching these technologies. But worse, the discussion from 1999-2005 was dominated by two principles: last year’s sales as a proportion of the overall fleet and the “increased cost” of each vehicle over the “regular” version. These obviously manipulative attempts never took into consideration the interests of the consumers or the true buying habits of their customers.

In the early 2000s, Toyota Prius sales amounted to less than 1% of Toyota’s American vehicle sales, but since day one, they have sold out of every vehicle each year, despite the ever-increasing production. For the media, economists, and domestic auto manufacturers the proof of disinterest in the hybrid was based on these statistics, not on the public’s mood, excitement, or interest in the vehicles. For Toyota, the Prius was created to be a hybrid from the ground up, meaning that it is the “regular” version. Cars of its size, power, and frills are of a comparable price—but that concept was ignored from the very beginning.

What the American automotive manufacturers, economists, and mainstream press were interested in amounted to yesterday’s statistics. There was never an interest in today. The obsession with the eternal present is truly an obsession with the past. This is the main reason that it is pushed by those that are obsessed with what they have already spent their money on: how much it cost them to fill up their car on the way to work, how much the cup of coffee cost them at lunch, and how much they had to pay in taxes when they look at their pay stub. The eternal present is based on a belief that the past is fixed, and never increasing, and the repercussions of this continuous realization. Tax, efficiency, and cost obsessions are truly a response to a fear that the present and future will inevitably lead to a more worrisome recent past. In doing so, they create a system that becomes increasingly volatile and less dependable thereby creating the world that embodies their worst fears. Maybe it’s time we remove the reigns from such unreliable and untrustworthy hands.

We are addicted to conflict and confrontation

The recent Supreme Court rulings and other court cases bring up an interesting dynamic that seems to be misunderstood and unrepresented in the way citizens argue about the future of their country. This dynamic is the systemic oppositional argument process that is so fundamental to Western rule of law and to the founding of our government.

What I mean by this is the principle that a person stands up for a “side” or set of beliefs, with the rigorous attempts to both strengthen that position, but for making of that position dominant or “the winner” in any/every argument. From the back porch discussions, to court rooms, to Congress, the principle implies these things:

1. There are two sides to every issue. This is restrictive to ONLY two sides as well as creating the principle that if my opponent supports it, I must oppose it. In this way, we generate a second side when we would ordinarily be in agreement.
2. We must set ourselves up as opponents. This has to do with our love affair with competition, but the belief is that we are able to challenge and inspire each other to do better.
3. We must see the opponent as an enemy. We are not allowed to trust our opponents, nor should we in anyway help their position. Even though the spirit of challenging and inspiring encourages our opposition, we develop hatred for those very opponents, as their beliefs mean the downfall of all that we hold dear.
4. Many arguments are intellectually or experientially appealing but statistically inaccurate—often dramatically so. My favorite examples of this are quite common knowledge and yet not factored into our decisions. Over 60% of homeowners killed in home-entries are killed with their own gun: this runs counter the self-defense position. Another is the abstinence-only position of sex education. It is based on the argument that if you teach children to not have sex then bad things won’t happen, but the opposite is true: there is clear evidence of increased sexual behavior, broadening of sexual expression, decreased use of contraception, and increased pregnancy and STDs.
5. And many others that I haven’t thought of.

But this sense of oppositional argument creates strange political hay as opposition to war policy means to some that you hate the United States or the more vague because terrorists chose to commit murder in the U.S., then it means that “terrorists hate our freedom”.

More difficult to discect, however, is the place that this process has in our judicial system. The fundamental principle is that the state is in the process of prosecuting those they deem as offending or breaking the rule of law. Defense attorneys are hired or appointed to not only protect the rights of the defendant, but to attempt with all of his/her might to limit the criminal repurcussions or prove the innocence of his/her client without regard to actual circumstances.

Personally, I am in awe of this system and would defend it to my dying day. The problem isn’t this process, but public ignorance of the basic elements of this process. We argue about crime and legal matters from the gut level or intellectualize the ramifications of each decision without recognizing the fact that there is no position of neutral independence in the process outside of the judge and jury—whose jobs are not the crafting of arguments (outside of state and federal courts charged with providing a legal opinion).

Let’s take the recent gun argument, for example. Discussions about 2^nd Amendment naturally gravitate toward traditional positions of ‘gun control’ and ‘gun rights’: personal defense, (seemingly inalienable) ownership rights, crime, sport, and the granddaddy of them all: personal experience. If I start talking about this ruling opening up gun rights in not only an unprecedented way, but in a way that is both counterintuitive toward both historical opinion and current opinion, someone will invariable be “forced” into telling me about the ineffectiveness of gun control laws, that guns are used for protection, and that it isn’t an ownership thing but an education and safety issue, etc.. In fact, I think all NRA members have the talking points memorized. We can’t have an honest discussion, nor can we communicate what happens tomorrow because of today’s decision.

What happens when the historic position and the current/future reality both negate the current understanding and judicial position? What happens when we no longer want citizen militias to be ready to overthrow a tyrannical government? What happens when our nation is too heavily populated for a ‘Wild West’ view of gun ownership? What happens when the majority of our citizens live in urban centers that cannot afford violent altercations in the streets, in public places, or even homes (which are more likely to include condos, subdivisions, apartment complexes, and lofts above businesses—in other words, more heavily crowded areas than wilderness and towns)? The original intention of the 2^nd Amendment and the future reality are antithetical to the modern interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment—especially in such broad preference toward the freedom to own a gun and the rising movement to give greater freedom in using guns. Legal opinions that don’t take the environment into consideration are just academic arguments with no place.

But then again, we don’t really want to think about the complexities of issues that are matters of life and death—the simple, traditional short cuts make for easier arguments.

Supreme Court? Supreme dunces more like it...

I have thought about all of the great arguments for why the Supreme Court couldn't give a blanket response to a narrow gun law that would lead to any vague interpretation that a monkey could come up with, and I've settled on this one response:

Suck it!

That's my response. Let me say it again.

Suck it!

You idiots!

Suck, suck, suck, suck, suck it!

I feel a little better.

Really, here it is. It should be simple. The law before the Supreme Court was directed at violent crime and home safety in the clearest way possible. It was a handgun ban and a required disassembly of the gun at home. Simple.

If you don't like the law and are all into "home protection", then the dissassembled gun requirement might be enough. But the court, in its infinite wisdom as described by the village idiot (Justice Scalia--Damn you, Reagan!!), struck it down with such varacity and with such vague platitudes that a monkey could argue that he has a right to owning an uzi in his lab cage.

For those not paying attention (and have ignored the news this past week), here is the 2nd Amendment in all its glory:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If you want to look at the whole Constitution (and why wouldn't you?), check it out here.

So, the 2nd Amendment includes these important concepts:

• "A well regulated militia" is essential to maintain the new freedom (1789).
• People have a right to keep arms.
• People have a right to bear arms.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a component of the well regulated militia.
• The rights of the people to their arms "shall not be infringed".

Did I miss any?

Anyway, this is what I'm driving at. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with 1) hunting, 2) 'sport', 3) protecting one's domicile, or 4) protecting one's person.

Second, even a broad interpretation of this right neglects the very principle of this amendment: BECAUSE we need "a well regulated militia", we must maintain the freedom of arms. The Supreme Court's decision protects the individual's right to keep their guns, but doesn't protect the national right to "a well regulated militia". The very reason for the 2nd Amendment is for national defense and future uprisings against an oppressive government. In fact, the notion of personal self-preservation is so much of an afterthought that it is not provided for in the amendment.

And this is the added insult of the whole thing. Justices Scalia and Thomas have both described their judicial philosophy as "strict constructionist", with the suggestion that they obey the words as written--ignoring their inherent properties. They also obey the words in their original context--which means they pick and choose what that means to their current environment. So back to the decision. The four right-wing justices [the term 'right-wing' doesn't seem to have the umph anymore to demonstrate how wacked out these guys are] that proclaim this philosophy have made an opinion that is neither implicit in the Constitution, but seems to run counter to both the nature of the amendment and its context. The one time these morons are supposed to live up to their crack-pot philosophies, they go all revisionist and make up new judicial precedent.

And people think presidential elections don't mean anything. The oldest of these four nimrods is in his 50's. Thanks Reagan, Bush I, and a double Bush II shot.

Look for widespread overturning of virtually any gun law that makes an ounce of sense.

McCain should just stop talking

In an article about the Supreme Court, outlining the differences between the two presidential candidates, something became abundantly clear: Sen. John McCain is a jerk.

A jerk that has a serious problem. It is one of the following: 1) he thinks stupid is preferable to intelligent, 2) he himself is stupid, 3) being qualified to judge something only matters when he is the one who is qualified, 4) he believes conservative points of view are trump—beating all others regardless of the logic, 5) he thinks critical analysis is watching your stools, 6) he thinks the legal system should be run by robots—assuming they are programmed with a conservative ideology, 7) he actually thinks that a conservative frame of mind is objective—and doesn’t see the irony, 8) he thinks we are all idiots, 9) he places the welfare of his narrow mind above the welfare of his own children, and 10) all of the above.

Take a look at the article. It is a typical piece that shows why Sen. Barack Obama represents a traditional liberal view of the court, while McCain represents the new conservative movement of the last thirty years. Nothing new here. But scroll down. Take a look at the second half of the article. It points out that Obama taught constitutional law. Instantly he has a whole lot more legal experience than McCain. His word carries a great deal more credibility. He also held the prestigious position of president of the Harvard Law Review. McCain’s experience in this arena? (can you hear the crickets?) And they try to argue Obama has no experience!

But look at the last three paragraphs:

"Both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time," Obama said during the Roberts confirmation hearings. "What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. ... That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

This seems like a pretty fair assessment, especially considering the proclivity of conservative justices to use that 5% to push an agenda! Especially in light of the pressing constitutional concerns, not the least of which includes Cheney’s Law and the ‘imperial president.’ But let’s continue:

McCain answered derisively in a recent speech recalling Obama's reference to a judge's "deepest values" and "empathy."

"These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism," he said. "Come to think, they sound like an activist judge wrote them."

Hmm. “Judicial activism.” These vague words attempt to justify conservative ideology over a rational interpretation of the constitution. Come to think, they sound like a partisan hack wrote them.

But isn’t the root of this statement more devilish than it sounds at first?

1. McCain is advocating for a Supreme Court that does not exercise its power: a hands off court. This has led to the current state with the unitary executive.
2. He is suggesting that it is only activist if it is a position other than Conservative. Or, more specifically, the so-called ‘strict constructionalist’ ideology that is a bastardized ‘historical’ reading of the constitution.
3. He is name-calling in an attempt to paint Obama as some crazed radical with some strange agenda: an interesting development when his perfect judges (Roberts and Alito) are hell-bent on repealing Roe v. Wade.
4. He is trying to say that Obama’s experience is not credible because of his mainstream ideology.
5. He is making an attack on Obama as an “elitist”, and suggesting that he is average.

The frame that McCain is trying to create here, albeit very weakly, is one of safety and security in him: even though his judicial agenda is neither supported by the law community at large, nor by traditional conservatives. Think the neo-conservative equivalent for judges.

Regardless of what McCain’s intentions are, what he is saying, implying, and trying to get you to believe is reprehensible and down-right wrongheaded. If you need another reason to recognize that McCain is a jerk, let it be this one.

What's in a word

I am always thinking about words: how funny they can be, what we fruitlessly attempt to communicate, etc.. I am drawn to what our intentions are behind the words we use. That is why I am looking for a new word.

I have some things in mind, but the search is still open.

The word I’m looking to replace is liberal. Not for the en vogue reasons (Republicans turned it into the L-word, it has lost its majesty in a newly conservative world, it doesn’t completely describe me), but for the linear, oppositional reasons.

Liberalism is, in its nature, inseparable from the enlightenment. Liberalism in its most traditional sense has always revealed a world view—not a view based on a laundry list of political positions, but one that manufactures two elements of human nature: the need to be open and willing to change and the need to maintain traditions and structures. Liberalism was so easily painted as a hostile position, both from its traditional sense to its 1960s-radical sense. Working in philosophical and theological circles, it is easy to see how an obvious reticence (or even open hostility) can arise toward liberalism. This is especially true when painted as a response to “our more naturally conservative nature” and in light of the confusing “traditional” liberalism with modern liberal politics.

Many of my peers decided in the early 90’s to abandon the term liberal to a more politically advantageous and appropriately descriptive term: progressive. The suggestion is, of course, that liberal is too tainted to continue to use (though nobody sees the kooks on the right abandoning the c-word). And from a theological perspective, perhaps it is. The problem, however, is that progressive doesn’t leave the same gene pool. It comes from the same enlightenment mindset in which human beings exist within a continuum and if we work at it, we might progress to the next step. It shares DNA with the idea of social evolution: that we can achieve something called progress within society.

In a postmodern world, the notion of a progressive person or a political label such as liberal are becoming much less useful, and worse, confusing and confounding.

Perhaps a more honest approach to labels (other than the obvious rebellion against them) is to see them less as describing a person and more about describing a movement. This is what is so appealing to many of us about the Emergent movement, within and outside of the church. Emergent, by the nature of its very idea cannot be a descriptor of an orthodox theology or creedal worldview, but a means of emphasizing a couple of shared principles to see change in the community. It is a movement in every traditional sense of the word. In this way, emergent as a term has more in common with civil rights, equal rights, and public safety movements than it does with institutional or denominational affiliations.

But like terms that have come before, emergent has taken on a life of its own. It appears to be seen by many as either a fad or a holy grail, neither of which serve to empower the term. Perhaps the very pursuit of a descriptor that can describe my worldview is another attempt to form a new creedal statement—creating further opposition and confusion.

What ideas do you have about liberalism?

I finally figured it out!

Here’s my confession: I never liked the WWJD craze; it made me want to throw up. This is not intended to offend you or insult you if you are one that found it meaningful. And intellectually, I had no objection to it. I simply reacted to it with such visceral opposition to bracelets, T-Shirts, bumper stickers that proclaimed neither the encouraged devotion or intent, but served more as an endorsement. They may just as easily put “Jesus is my preferred candidate” and a Jesus Fish on their chest, wrist, or bumper.

WWJD

It’s even inherently exclusive. An acronym, even one so recognizable, is in its very nature exclusive. Our churches aren’t SDEC, expecting the world to simply “get” that it stands for St. David’s Episcopal Church. We just live with the proper name. So should the What Would Jesus Do? movement.

But something hit me the other day. WWJD is insidious—in a good way. It suggests something that the Fundamentalists and Conservatives that championed the concept wouldn’t support, or would seem to have trouble supporting in the theologies of leading scholars like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. By asking what Jesus would do, we are showing a profound respect to both the actions of Jesus and our call to be his disciples. This shows a real interest in the humanity of Jesus—a short distance jump from the efforts of the historical Jesus scholars.

I know what you’re saying: “But Drew, just thinking about Jesus’s actions isn’t the inherent purview of liberal scholars, nor is this exclusive from evangelicalism.” If you are thinking this, then of course, you are right. But here is the rub: the theological focus of evangelicals is so primarily trained on evangelism, baptism, and church growth, that it serves the top 1-10 spots in their hierarchy: the human nature of Jesus is so far removed from the discussion, that using the WWJD reminder cue to think about Jesus’s actions is often counter to the evangelical devotion to that aforementioned singular focus.

Secondly, that focus is so primarily interested in the ‘saving power’ of Jesus and the interest in Jesus being the singular means of salvation. This demonstrates a Christological focus on the divine Jesus. Disinterested in what Jesus says to his disciples about poverty, politics, and civilization, the discussion of salvation is exclusively interested in the pre- and post-human Jesus: what the legal ramifications on humanity before Jesus ‘came down from heaven’ are and in Jesus’s position as grantor of salvation to those in the last 2,000 years that have become Christians.

Thirdly, this view of the divine Jesus as grantor of salvation or as gatekeeper on behalf of Christians to let them in and keep the riff raff out, simultaneously leads to an interesting Trinitarian response that Jesus is God (as opposed to God in/as Jesus, God and Jesus as coequals, or God as directing Jesus and the Holy Spirit, etc.) and is the center of our worship life. Making Jesus the center of our worship clearly leads to confusion over both the purpose of our religious tradition and of the persona of Jesus.

Fourthly, in focusing on the actions of Jesus, we then isolate those actions from the divine form of Jesus. One may infer from the reminder of Jesus that He is/was connected to God and demonstrates His inherent divine nature regardless of the context, but the reminder (WWJD) is of the human form with no mention or interest in divinity. Instead, our attention is directed on the human Jesus and what we as humans are doing in relation to Him.

Fifthly, our Catholic and Mainstream Protestant friends are further directed away from questions of legalism and hierarchy when the primary question that each member asks is “what would Jesus do?”. Jesus’s teachings and actions were clearly less interested in adherence to rules that direct us, but to the simple relationships between us and God and between an individual and his/her community.

So there you have it. What Would Jesus Do? is actually a pretty good slogan. I can’t say that I’ll wear one of those stupid bracelets any more than I’ll put a fish on my bumper, but I might suggest that this fad wasn’t that bad!

PS—yes, I know that WWJD is, like, ten years old or something, but you never know! Some of us are a little slow.

True Politicians

Yesterday I wrote about something revolutionary: politicians aren’t bad!

Oh, the horror!

The definition of politician I used was simply: “a person experienced in the art or science of government”; suggesting someone that is an experienced and knowledgeable person who knows a lot about government. That government is an “art” and a “science”. The suggestion is that government requires certain skills, knowledges, and experiences that are unique to itself.

These are the reasons we don’t hire Orkin men (like Tom Delay), but lawyers and teachers (the two most prominent professions for politicians). We hire smart people that know how to research and think about their actions. We look for people that respect the institution and view the politics of government to be a hallowed place.

Or at least we used to.

Our understanding of politician representing the second definition on the website:

2 a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession

b: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

seems much more recent. In a post-1994 world, we elect people that disrespect “the art or science of government”. We elect people that not only lack the skills and knowledges required for the job, we actively oppose those that do. We seem to want the least qualified and the most destructive people in office. This position was personified to an incredible degree with the coronation of George W. Bush, who served as a clown king of the Imperial States of America. The primary aptitude he possessed: more fun at a barbecue.

We seemed to think it was a legitimate option for Pres. Bush to appoint people to lead organizations that were actively working to either destroy the organization or disrupt its work: big polluter lobbyists to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, pharmaceutical CEOs to head the Food and Drug Administration, and John Bolton, UN-hater extraordinaire to be our rep to the United Nations. We didn’t object because we seem to regard this as business as usual!

Here’s a thought. Maybe we should elect people that respect the office to which we have elected them! Maybe experienced politicians can represent a knowledge and skill that is necessary from the profession! Maybe we can pull our heads out of our asses long enough to notice when a politician is doing a good job!

And this one goes to the Clintonistas: maybe change in Washington is not a question of experience but integrity! How novel!