Christians: I choose making disciples for Jesus over electioneering

Let's be honest. This election campaign, which began sixteen months ago, has been, no matter what your party or philosophy, depressing.

The ugliness exhibited not just by candidates, but by voters, has made the whole thing a wretched exercise. There have been media reports of a significant number of Americans ending their friendships over this campaign.

My Facebook and Twitter feeds fairly explode with attacks not just on other candidates, but on "friends" who support other candidates. One person I know has decided, because it's all become so hateful, to just stop looking at Facebook until after the election.

I'd like to say just a few things. And they're directed at my fellow Christians.

First, I've personally made it a habit for some years now not to make any comments about my preferred politician or party.* Not even my family knows for sure how I will vote on November 8.

Both as a Christian and as a pastor, I have bigger fish to fry than to tell you who my (probably inadequate) judgment tells me to vote for.

Back in the mid-first century, the apostle Paul told the Christians at Corinth: "...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2).

The mission of every Christian--not just pastors--is to make disciples of the God Who lived a perfect human life and bore our sins on a cross to set us free from sin, death, and darkness.

Personally, I don't want to dilute or diminish the message of new and everlasting life through Jesus by self-indulgently peppering you with my political opinions.

If I have to choose between electioneering, on the one hand, and making disciples of Jesus Christ, on the other, I will choose discipling every single time. No contest. No second thoughts. Who wins an election is far less important than sharing Jesus so that people can know Him, follow Him, receive His grace, get His power for living, be filled with the hope that only He can give! I'd rather seek to make disciples than get someone to vote for one political candidate or another.

This isn't to say that that's the right course for you. But, I can tell you that it works for me.

Second, no candidate--not Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, not Gary Johnson, not Jill Stein, not Evan McMullin--is worth destroying any Christian's witness for Christ or decimating our friendships.

Candidates, presidents, prime ministers, kings, and dictators will come and go. But God and the life that He offers to all of us through Jesus Christ, endures forever.

With the psalmist, I can say of this God revealed in Jesus: "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God" (Psalm 90:2).

Besides, candidates and presidents are only mortal people like you and me: "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in humans. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes" (Psalm 118:8-9). Princes and other people, generally, will let us down. (I let people down.) To expect people to be some kind of foundation on which we can build our lives is absolute foolishness.

Third, if we feel we have to speak up politically, as I frequently do with members of my family, we who seek to follow Jesus need to do it with civility.

Proverbs 15:1 makes the common sense observation: "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

The simple fact of the matter is that if we press our views with harshness, insisting on stereotyping our opponents as "devils" or "deplorables"--to cite terms used by Trump and Clinton, respectively--we aren't going to win anybody over.

Fourth, after this election is over, we will have a new President-Elect. Whether we voted for the winning candidate or not, that person will be the president of all Americans.

Opposing presidents' programs is fine. But the same need for civility that is so apparent during this campaign will be needed after the new president's inauguration on January 20.

So will our prayers. Writing to the young pastor Timothy in the midst of both shunning and persecution of Christians by governmental authorities, the apostle Paul gave this directive: "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior..." (1 Timothy 2:1-3).

Of course, there are times when Christians must speak up: when lives are threatened, when injustices are done. But even then, our witness should be civil and loving. I daily pray that God will help me to get out of His way so that I can exhibit these traits, so foreign to my nature.

*What about that post from yesterday? That was about what how a Christian pastor mischaracterized and effectively excused the sinful objectification of women, not about politics. I acknowledged in the post that Donald Trump had apologized for his 2005 comments and that it was up to God and to voters to decide whether it was genuine. I refuse to give a public opinion on that question.

[Blogger Mark Daniels is pastor of Living Water Lutheran Church in Centerville, Ohio.]

Saturday This and That

These are some of the things that caught my eye this past week.

Ever wonder what that extra shoelace hole is for?
It isn't just for show.

Are fountain pens the next big thing?
In A Primer on Fountain Pens, Brett and Kate McKay share the writing instrument's history and tell us why, at times, they should be our instrument of choice for writing. Somehow, I don't see the fountain pen taking off as a fad.

Denzel Washington's recommended number 1 priority for college graduates...
...put God first.

Letter to JetBlue...
...from the grateful mother of an autistic child.

"How is it that really, really smart people can come to believe really, really stupid things?"...
...The revered journalist, Seymour Hersh, seems to have been looking for the "big story" for decades and, in the process, produced some embarrassments, including his just released story alleging that Osama bin Laden's death was less of an American achievement than a Pakistani government gift. Marc Ambinder suggests that, in his long journalistic career, Hersh has often been right on facts, but often way off when taking about motive, leading him to believe crazy things.

The US is "less Christian"...
...so says a new study.

But the sky is not falling...
...So shows Ed Stetzer.

The US restaurant business is stagnant...
...because millennials don't go to restaurants as much as preceding generations did. One factor that might explain this, not mentioned in the article, is the plethora of cooking shows. Cooking has become fun and hip, whereas in previous generations regarded it as a necessity and a chore. So, millennials might actually prefer eating their own cooking at home.

$179.3-million is no abstraction...
...That's how much Picasso's Women of Algiers brought in at an auction this past week.

Has the decline of baseball...
...corresponded with the decline of American character?

Hillary would, if he weren't a competitor, likely advise Jeb to watch out for questions...
...Clinton has only answered eight from the media since her campaign began, preferring to take questions from folks at town meetings. On the other hand, Bush's most challenging questions have come from "ordinary" voters, not the media, and as he answers them, seems to get himself into increasingly deeper waters. I wrote here:

While it may be in a candidate's interest to speak to the press, Clinton isn't legally bound to do so. If she wants to reach the public with town hall meetings, advertising, conventional campaigning, and social media releases, that's her choice. But it's likely to backfire on her...

Now, Bush seems to be showing us that answering any question from anybody can produce its own backfires.

While I recognize that there's a good chance that anyone who runs for president is either (a) filled with megalomania or (b) racked by feelings of inferiority, I nonetheless feel badly about the meat grinding analysis and tedious verbal parsing to which all candidates for the country's highest office are subjected.

A legend has died...
...B.B. King passed on Thursday. Love this article about him from USA Today.

Saturday This and That

Things that caught my eye this past week...

Typography geeks say that résumés should never use Times New Roman...
...typeface and that Helvetica is the way to go.

Helvetica is safe, and it "feels professional, lighthearted, honest," designer Brian Hoff tells Bloomberg.

The article from The Week points out that Helvetica has a whole movie about it. Nerd that I am, I have seen it. I like to use Arial.

Have you heard about Plenti?
Received a mailing this past week, inviting us to join Plenti, a cross-brand customer loyalty program presently involving lots of retailers, including Macy's, Rite Aide, AT & T, Hulu, Nationwide, and others. People who use their Plenti cards or numbers, earn and redeem points for purchases from the participating companies. I hadn't heard of this program until we got the mailer. According to this article from the March 18 edition of USA Today:

...70% of the U.S. population lives within 5 miles of at least two participating locations. And brands without physical locations, such as Hulu, still have broad national reach online.

The article also says that a similar program has existed in Germany for about fifteen years in which almost half of all German households participate. What's the catch? Can't see an egregious one. American Express, the catalyst behind Plenti, seems simply to want to spread more plastic--nothing new there--and the retailers think that by joining an all-for-one, one-for-all loyalty card, they'll increase sales. Haven't signed up myself. But I could see it as a win, at least in the short run, for consumers.

For Christians, there's a difference between freedom...
...and license.

As of Tuesday, according to Chris Cilizza, Hillary Clinton has answered...
...seven questions. The Washington Post's Cilizza then enumerates them. My reaction: While it may be in a candidate's interest to speak to the press, Clinton isn't legally bound to do so. If she wants to reach the public with town hall meetings, advertising, conventional campaigning, and social media releases, that's her choice. But it's likely to backfire on her...even if this is the opening "listening" phase of her campaign. In the linked piece, Cilizza also lists seven questions he would like to ask the former Secretary of State.

God bless Ashlea's family as they grieve her passing...
...and kudos to the Reds' Skip Schumaker for being the only player in Saint Louis that day to take the time to meet and visit with Ashlea before the Reds-Cardinals matchup. Heard Reds color commentator Chris Welsh say, in discussing this visit and Ashlea's passing, that Schumaker may not be a starter, but he is a leader in the club house, precisely for gestures like this.

I need everyone to do me a favor..SHARE this photo until it goes viral! My sister (in law) Ashlea has battled cancer...
Posted by Updates on Baby Bennett on Thursday, April 23, 2015

The 'Louie Louie' singer nobody could understand...
...has died. Like Lenny and T.B. in That Thing You Do, singer Jack Ely left the Kingsmen just after he recorded the lead vocal on the best-selling cover of the song.

In that other big game...

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, is the first choice of possible Iowa Republican caucus-goers, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the top choice, by a huge margin, of potential Iowa Democratic caucus-goers. Iowa, of course, holds the first formal presidential contest of the two major parties' presidential nominating processes.

Clinton appears to be a prohibitive favorite there:

Clinton, the former U.S. secretary of state and a fixture in national Democratic politics for more than 20 years, is the first choice for 56 percent of poll respondents. That's 40 points ahead of the next potential contender, liberal populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is the top choice for 16 percent.

Clinton's numbers seem to be scaring off most potential candidates for president in her party.

Things are quite a bit different among Republicans. Lots of candidates are either committed to or looking at the race. So, Republicans in Iowa haven't made any real choices yet. Walker leads the pack with 15%. But then, there's this:

The Wisconsin governor is...the No. 2 most popular choice for likely caucusgoers who want an establishment candidate, and he's the No. 2 for those who want an anti-establishment candidate.

In other words, people don't know Walker very well yet. He's a blank slate on which potential voters are imposing their own versions of Scott Walker. Surely, voters in Iowa, which shares a border with Wisconsin, know something of Walker who, by virtue of his three statewide runs in Wisconsin--in first election campaign, his recall campaign, and his re-election campaign. But some see him as an establishment (i.e., Bush, Romney) Republican, while others see him as an anti-establishment (i.e., Ted Cruz, Rand Paul) Republican.

This means that Walker has a delicate task ahead of him. As he rolls out his campaign, he has to be careful to portray himself as the anti-establishment establishment candidate, or maybe the establishment anti-establishment candidate. That, of course, is impossible and Walker is going to have to just be himself--or a reasonable version of himself--and let the chips fall where they may. To me, he seems a likely viable contender for the nomination, along with Jeb Bush.

Bush, by the way, needs, I think, to hope that one or two others emerge as viable contenders for the Republican nomination besides Walker and himself so that Walker can't position himself as the new and conservative voice over against Bush as the older establishment candidate. Bush's chances are enhanced, at least through the early primaries and caucuses, by a multitude of anti-establishment types like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Huckabee.

Of course, if Bush fails to win the nomination and the person who garners it has painted their candidacy as distant from Bush's perceived mainstream conservatism, that nominee will have a tough time "re-positioning" in the general election campaign.

In recent history, voters have tended to turn out the party that's been in the White House for eight years. That would suggest that the 2016 race is the Republicans to lose. But, demographics right now give the Democrats an advantage. If they can lock up the coasts and ad a handful of flyover states, they can win routinely, it would seem. These two imperatives will collide in the next election.

Clinton faces her own land mines. As she learned in 2008, being the frontrunner doesn't ensure a candidate of the nomination. She also will be seen by some as a vestige of an unwanted past, even as others see her as a harbinger of a new American future. She will also be assailed for the Benghazi incident during her tenure at the State Department.

Having said all of this, two things:

• 1. I express no preferences here. If you think that I have, you misunderstand. I've come to believe that pastors shouldn't make political endorsement or get involved with politics. And I'm not doing that here at all. It's just that, against my will, I'm still afflicted with my lifelong interest in the politics of politics. Even when I make my choice about who I vote for in 2016, you won't know it.
• 2. I wish that presidential campaigns were shorter and that, at least publicly, those in government spent more time governing and less time campaigning. I wrote about that back on January 20, 2007, here. It's worth reading, not so much for what I wrote, but for the interesting conversation that came out of it, either recorded or linked to, there.

Okay, go back to Super Bowl coverage. (Can you tell that I got my sermon finished early today?)

That "Presidential Grub" is Resilient Stuff

Ann Althouse makes it plain that she thinks departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was shooting less than straight when she said that isn't presently inclined to run for the presidency in 2016. Althouse asked her readers to "assess the degree of [baloney]" (my translation) in Clinton's statement.

But I don't think one can assess Clinton too much blame for being disingenuous about her White House ambitions.

For one thing, even in this era of "it's campaign time all the time," it's not "nice" to admit wanting to be President when crews are still cleaning up after the most recent Inauguration, even though those who run without craving the office like cocaine are dismissed for lacking "fire in the belly."

On top of that she's got people still fanning the flames of her presidential ambition addiction. It doesn't need much encouragement.

Nor would the ambitions of anyone under the age of 80 who has ever had the presidency clearly in their sights, within reasonable reach. (Sometimes it doesn't even need to have been in "reasonable reach." Remember Harold Stassen?) Lincoln once observed, “No man knows, when that Presidential grub gets to gnawing at him, just how deep in it will get until he has tried it."

I'm guessing, no woman knows either.

Clinton at State...Does It Make Sense?

For any incoming President, building a Cabinet team can be a bit like piecing together a puzzle.

Even if you don't begin with a nod to identity politics, pledging as Bill Clinton did during his transition to the presidency, to have a Cabinet that "looks like America," presidents want to have teams that bring not only competence, but also allow them to placate various groups and interests.

Yet, there's more at play in putting together a Cabinet than completing a checklist.

As a leader myself for much of the past three decades, whether in church, charitable, education, or community groups, I've also subscribed to the notion in whatever effort I lead, I would much rather have strong-willed people who differ with me on some things as part of my leadership group, rather than leaving them on the outside. People who feel that they're out of the loop or denied some of the facts, even when they are not, are motivated to positively influence their own constituencies when they're part of "the team" of decision-makers. This was also the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln, who put together what Doris Kearns Goodwin called his "team of rivals." Goodwin's book of that name has apparently had a huge impact on President-elect Obama. Like Lincoln, who brought in the New York senator who had been his chief opponent for their party's nomination for president to be his Secretary of State, Obama is evidently weighing the possibility of making Hillary Clinton his top diplomat, too.

Does it make sense?

Michael Silverstein's Funny Take on Clinton's Campaign

Check out his alternate lyrics for Try a Little Tenderness regarding the departure of Hillary Clinton from the presidential race. You might also want to look at the fun verse of Sliverstein, the Wall Street Poet, here.

Clinton, Obama, and the Experience Issue

With Illinois Senator Barack Obama in a virtual tie with her in Iowa polls before that state's presidential caucus, Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband are claiming that Obama is dangerously lacking in experience which the New York senator apparently possesses. The New York Times reports that former President Bill Clinton says that electing Obama would be "rolling the dice" for the United States.

This is a curious argument for Clinton and her campaign to make.

The reason it's so strange is that it's so at odds with the facts. Clinton began her first term in the Senate, her first political office, in January, 2001. It's true that Obama didn't enter the Senate until January, 2005. But by that time, he had already served ten years in the Illinois legislature, meaning that he has roughly double the experience in elective political office that Clinton has.

The only way that Clinton's experience argument will resonate with voters is if they think of "experience" in terms of years of public visibility. But it's precisely Clinton's years of public visibility that create her greatest problem as a candidate. After all her time in the public spotlight, she's viewed negatively by a daunting percentage of voters. I personally can't recall a candidate being nominated by a major political party with as much hard opposition--upwards of 40% in most national polls--as Clinton. Her "experience" then, could be a deficiency in many voters' eyes.

What's interesting about the three current front runners for the Democrats in Iowa--Clinton, Obama, and former one-term Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards--is that all of them have thin federal elective resumes. The experience of each appears to pale by comparison to their less popular rivals like Senator Joseph Biden, Senator Christopher Dodd, and Governor Bill Richardson.

Elective political experience, it should be pointed out, isn't always a great predictor of an excellent presidency. George Washington spent limited time in the Virginia House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress before becoming president. Dwight Eisenhower, though always a "political general," in the best sense of that term, had never held public office when he became president. They developed the skills necessary for the presidency while becoming two of the country's three greatest generals. (The third, Ulysses S. Grant, was a disastrous president.)

Nor is federal elective experience or even executive experience of much use in predicting who will perform well in the White House. When he became president in 1861, for example, Abraham Lincoln had served about a decade in the Illinois legislature and one term in the US House, back during the Polk Administration, and had no executive experience. (Obama's resume in 2007 is almost precisely the same as that of Lincoln's in 1860.)

On the other hand, some long-time officeholders were disastrous presidents. Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding, Martin Van Buren, and Richard Nixon, among others, are unlikely to have their images chiseled into the sides of mountains.

There probably is little way of knowing how experience is going to play out in a presidency. I nonetheless think voters take it into consideration and vote against candidates they think have too little experience. Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the 2004-version of John Edwards would probably agree with me on that. (Of course, each of those candidates had other "issues" that we could go into, but inexperience as elected public officials played a role in their rejection by voters.)

Of course, Clinton is pushing the experience issue, something she spoke about earlier in the year but had not emphasized in recent months, because the momentum of the Iowa caucus campaign is shifting. Clearly, Obama is on the rise and Clinton is throwing this argument out to voters in an effort to stop her chief rival. Whether Obama can beat Senator Clinton may depend on her ability to convince voters that, as she's quoted as saying in that New York Times piece, she's been vetted and that electing Senator Obama to the presidency would be too dicey.

Though her argument doesn't square with history, voters in Iowa may buy it. If they do, Clinton will likely have done all she needs to do to secure the Democratic nomination and put Obama away. That's because Democrats in 2008, like Democrats in 2004, are so desperate to win the White House that New Hampshire Democrats, five days later, are likely to coalesce around the winner in Iowa, foregoing further intra-partisan wrangling in favor of creating a united front to face the Republican nominee in the fall. Democrats may be rolling the dice if they nominate Obama, as President Clinton suggests. But right now, his wife is betting her campaign on a different throw of the dice, her assertion that she is the experienced candidate for the presidency that her party wants and her country needs.

[This was posted last night at The Moderate Voice.]

Does Clinton Sound Like Kerry on the War?

Ann Althouse thinks so. I see things a little differently. I commented:

Ann:
What Hillary Clinton is saying about Iraq reminds me a bit of what Eisenhower said about Korea in 1952 and Nixon said about Vietnam in 1968.

Eisenhower promised that he would go to Korea and that he would bring a rapid end to the war there. Ike's credibility was so enormous and his military credentials so impeccable that he could get away with what was, after all, a rather vague formulation. He did end the conflict there within six months, much to the relief of the American people, who had become disgusted with the conflict.

Although Nixon is often cited as saying he had secret plan to end the war, he never specifically said that. He spoke of achieving "peace with honor." He also frequently alluded to how Eisenhower, under whom he served as vice president, had quickly wrapped up the Korean War, implying that he would do something similar in Vietnam. Voters, disgusted with the management of the war, suspicious of the bases on which the US became engaged in it, yet still not in favor of immediate withdrawal, gave Nixon a mere 300,00-vote victory in the November, 1968 election.

Hillary Clinton's formulations are reminiscent of those of Eisenhower's and Nixon's. They needed to convince voters that they would manage their inherited conflicts better than the incumbents. But for both political and sound strategic reasons, they wanted to avoid divulging specific plans. (It's unlikely that either had such plans anyway.) Clinton who, as you say, is at least divulging more of her thinking than John Kerry, faces similar political and strategic imperatives.

But one thing that makes Clinton's discussions of Iraq today different from those earlier discussions is the existence of a large "withdraw now" contingent within the Democratic Party. Neither Eisenhower or Nixon had to placate such sentiments within the Republican Party of their days. Many Republicans, far from favoring withdrawal from either Korea or Vietnam, would have preferred deploying more troops, going nuclear, or doing anything to achieve "victory." There isn't a victory caucus in the Democratic Party.

Eisenhower could, politically, get away with a rapid end to the Korean conflict because he was a general and was massively popular. (Arguably the most popular public figure in the US since George Washington.)

Nixon though, had to play to his base, which is why his "peace with honor" formula was so shrewd. Everybody wanted peace. But "with honor" let his base--and the rest of the country which still overwhelmingly opposed precipitate withdrawal from Vietnam--know that the allegedly "new Nixon" was no peace-at-any-price pol.

It's interesting that Clinton, who served as a lawyer for one of the congressional Watergate committees and was a functionary of the 1972 McGovern campaign, appears to be attempting to swipe from Nixon's 1968 playbook.

Whether this will work for her or not, I don't know. Though she's trying to be Nixonian, the fact that she's Democrat, as much as the substance of what she's saying, may be a big reason that she's sounding like John Kerry to you these days.

Mark

What do you think?

Wearing Faith on One's Sleeve

Last night, Hillary Clinton gave a laudable answer to CNN correspondent Soledad O'Brien's question on whether Clinton's Christian faith had helped her weather the very public storm occasioned by her husband's various infidelities. "I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," Clinton said.

She also commented that she came from a tradition that didn't feel comfortable with wearing its faith on its sleeve. That passing comment by the candidate evoked a round of applause, which in itself made me feel less than comfortable.

Here's why.

Christian faith is an inherently public thing. "Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others," Jesus says in Matthew 10:32-33, "I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven."

Jesus calls His followers to "make disciples" by sharing the Good News of forgiveness of sin, a reconciled relationship with God and others, and a new and everlasting life to be had by all who believe in Christ. This is what Christians call the Great Commission.

Christians, even those who are reticent or shy, believe that to hide our faith in Christ is like refusing to help someone who's drowning. Life, the Bible teaches us, comes to all with faith in Christ and once one has appropriated the new life that comes through faith, Christians want to go public and help others know Christ.

To not be public about our faith then, is something which Christians believe is wrong. Jesus teaches: "No one after lighting a lamp hides it under a jar, or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a lampstand, so that those who enter may see the light" (Luke 8:16).

Nonetheless, I think I understand why the audience who heard Clinton say that she came from a tradition uncomfortable with public discussion of faith applauded.

I believe it's because for twenty-eight years now, spokespersons for the so-called Religious Right have hijacked the good name of "Christian," advancing their own particular political philosophy and claiming that all good Christians agree with them.

Well, I'm a fairly conservative evangelical--albeit a Lutheran--Christian. I believe that the Bible is the definitive Word of God. I believe that there is salvation in Jesus' Name alone.

But I don't believe that there is a clear Christian political agenda. As I've said before, it's impossible to draw a straight line between the Bible and a particular political philosophy.

For example, there are Christian people who agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin but don't agree on whether the states should institute some sort of civil union or even gay marriage laws.

There are Christian people who agree that abortion is a great evil. But not all of them want to make it criminal for a woman who's been raped or whose life is in danger to seek an abortion.

There are Christians who believe that Genesis is true, but don't think that the Bible is or ever claims to be a book of science.

Above all, there are Christians who pray, worship, read God's Word, and seek God's guidance and don't agree politically with James Dobson or Pat Robertson. (Or with the liberal Christian pastor, Jim Wallis, either.)

I believe that Christians should go public with our faith in Jesus Christ. And I hope and pray that Jesus Christ guides me in all my decision-making, including in how I vote.

But, except when it is incontrovertibly clear which candidate God might prefer or what legislation God likes, Christians who speak out on public issues should be quick to say, "This is only what I think. God may not agree."

Political idelogues who claim to speak on behalf of God or Christian faith are making it difficult for those of us in the Church who are trying to do the real work Christ gave all Christians to do. Jesus described our task very simply:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20).

[Go here to find the eight installments of my series, How Christians Might Think About the 2008 Presidential Election.]

The Experienced Democrat?

Some months ago, I said that I thought Senator Barack Obama ought to take a pass on the 2008 presidential race. Though undeniably brilliant and someone it's easy to see in the White House, I said that his sparse Washington experience might be insufficient.

But I was shocked to hear this Linda Wertheimer report on NPR today. African-American women torn between supporting Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton were interviewed and several said that Clinton was the more experienced of the two.

I suppose it's how one measures experience. But when considering elective political experience, of the three Democratic frontrunners--Obama, Clinton, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Obama has the most experience. By my reckoning, counting his time in the Illinois state legislature, Obama has spent twelve years in elective office. Clinton has just over six years and Edwards has six, from his single term in the Senate.

Whichever of these three is nominated for the presidency, if any of them become the eventual nominee, will have to bring someone onto their ticket to shore up questions about experience deficiencies. (The way George W. Bush attempted to do in 2000, when he brought Dick Cheney onto his ticket.) But the one with the least experience deficiencies is Obama.

[Note: I wrote a bit about this experience issue, raised repeatedly by Senator Clinton, here.]

[THANKS TO: Deborah White at About.com's U.S. Liberals site for linking to this piece in a very interesting post weighing the debate among Democrats regarding Clinton v. Obama.]

Bill Puts It on Spin Cycle

Former President Bill Clinton will speak on health issues to a spinning exercise class in Manhattan on Thursday night. It's a fundraiser for his wife's presidential campaign and each participant will pay $2300 for an evening that will include Clinton's presentation, a forty-five minute workout, and "cocktails and appetizers."

It's certainly creative as campaign fundraising schemes go. And it's all part of the Hillary Clinton campaign's aim of raising between $20 and $30-million in the first three months of this year!

Not only have campaigns gotten too long, there's entirely too much money thrown around in the whole process. The Clintons probably raise so much money, in fact, that they're be less susceptible to the pressures for favors brought to bear by their contributors...though perhaps more so to those who run and sponsor their massive fundraising events. But, generally speaking, big givers, whether to Republican or Democratic candidates, aren't donating to candidates' coffers because of deeply-held principles. They're buying access.

But who's going to give access to all the millions of Americans who can't afford to ante up as candidates for both parties' nominations rev up their respective fundraising machines?

Interestingly, most politicians I know hate the campaign fundraising rat race. "I think of all the charities that could be helped with all the dollars I have to raise just to stay competitive and it makes me sick," one told me several years ago.

What's the cure for this wretched excess? I don't know. But I'm sure that the current campaign influence-peddling (pedaling?) system won't improve until all of us are sufficiently sickened by it!

[This has been cross-posted at RedBlueChristian.com.]

Accents (and Hillary)

After I read this, I took the test and found this. Then my colleague, Pastor Jeff took the test and said:

I do tend to pick up accents from the people I'm around. Is there a name for that?

A commenter told him:

Chameleonitis. Oprahitis [she does the same thing].

In sales, it's a technique called mirroring. [Not just words, but also body language.]

In theology, it's probably closer to "verbal empathy" and indicates a "sympathetic ear."

I think it's kinda' nice.

Probably.

But it sometimes can indicate a weak self-image, I think.

Or, it can be calculating.

And, fair or not, the latter possibility made me think of Hillary Clinton. Clinton was born and raised in Illinois, then went to college and law school in the Northeast. In other words, all her formative years were spent in the North. She lived there into her thirties.

But when she was First Lady of Arkansas and even during the 1992 campaign, she spoke with an accent that suggested she was from the South.

Suddenly however, when Inauguration Day, 1993, came, Clinton spoke like a Northerner again.

In fairness to Mrs. Clinton, when I travel to some places, I find myself unconsciously mimicking the natives. I exhibit chameleonitis.

For example, people in the part of rural northwestern Ohio where I lived for six years have an interesting accent and use words and phrases in ways different from what I experienced growing up in central Ohio. "We'll see once," they might say. Because the people there are so dear to me, I find myself picking up on their phrasings and cadences whenever I speak with them.

The accent in the northwestern lower peninsula of Michigan, where we lived for a year, shares some things in common with the accents heard in Canada and Minnesota. In addition, some of the lilts you hear in conversation there echo the Norwegian language spoken by many of the area population's ancestors. When I'm with people from that area, I mimick them a bit.

On the other hand, whenever I travel in the South, I speak more Northern, enunciating more clearly, without my usual sloppy elisions. I work harder at being understood and I listen more carefully. This may be because of two incidents from my travels in the South.

The first happened in a Subway sandwich shop in rural Tennessee about ten years ago. A friendly young woman had already taken the orders of my wife and two kids. For them, everything went without a hitch. But to my embarrassment, I found it hard to understand the woman. I kept having to ask her to repeat her questions of me. I asked her three times what she meant when she asked, "White or wheat bread?" I could have sworn that she'd asked, "Shall we pray?" (When I told my family about that later, they exploded with laughter and they've ridden me about it ever since!)

Another time, we were at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson. We were near the stables and slave quarters, when a woman standing next to me asked a question. "I'm sorry, ma'am, what did you say?" She repeated the question. I still didn't understand and asked her to pose it one more time. She did. I was baffled. And embarrassed. Finally, another tourist came up to us and told the woman, "Yes, that's a well." Question answered, the first woman walked away. The one who came to my rescue could see that I was mortified and afraid that I might have hurt the first woman and so explained to me, "I'm from Saint Louis and I've lived in Virginia for thirty years. But there are times when even I can't understand."

At any rate, those incidents have incited me to try to speak with absolute clarity when I travel South.

Pastor Jeff claims not to have any accent. That brought to memory a comment made by Jimmy Carter during the 1976 campaign. Speaking at a rally in the South, Carter asked the crowd, "Won't it be nice to have a President who doesn't have an accent?"

Nobody thinks that the way they talk has anything unique about it. Probably because we're surrounded by people who speak just like us, especially in our young years.

Winston Churchill once famously quipped that the United States and England were two peoples divided by a common language. That same division is evident in the varied accents that exist in America, in spite of the homogenization of mass media.

That's actually a neat thing. I love the diversity of accents you can hear in America, even the variations that exist between different communities.

You know what they say.

[THANKS TO AMBA for linking to this post.]