Billy Graham: God, Freedom, America

 

 

"If God doesn't punish America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Wow.

 

 

It takes a special kinda special to equate "financial collapse, Civil War and the Final Shredding of the Constitution" with God's judgement. I seem to remember something about leaving to Caesar that which is Caesar's - somehow, I don't think Matthew had the 2nd Amendment in mind with talk about turning the other cheek.

 

This, to me, is the ultimate irony.  Chuck Norris tells us that we must fear "socialism or something worse" should Obama, the democratically elected President of the United States, win a second term.  Implied somewhere in his calmly delivered rant is that a vote for Democrats is a vote against freedom.  He suggests, as have other GOP voices, that the moral fabric of the United States of America is eroding.  Unless you vote Republican, not only will America as they know it collapse but you will apparently be hastening Armageddon.  Norris' wife, Gina, points out that 30 million Evangelical Christians stayed home in 2008, with the implication being that these good Christians would have automatically voted against Obama if they'd cast their vote.

 

 

It's a bit of a syllogism, that; Democrats are freedom-hating socialists and if you vote for them, you must stand against freedom and true American values.  If you believe in godly, Christian values, the American Way and freedom, you have only one choice - vote Republican.  Let's say that again; if you want to be free, you only have one option available to you. 

 

 

This has been the Republican theme for the past four years; President Obama's agenda is dangerous and any progress on his initiatives must be stopped, for the good of the country.  Obama clearly isn't American - in his values, that is.  You can only have freedom and protect America by working against the Democrats; American values must not be left at the tender mercy of a democratically elected President.

 

 

Among the ungodly voices offering apples to the American people is Bill Clinton, twice-elected US President.  In his recent offering at the pagan alter of the DNC, he had this to say:

 

 

We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think “we’re all in this together” is a better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

 

 

Nothing about Republicans destroying the moral fabric of the nation; nothing about it being a sin to work with those on the other side. Clinton makes a simple case that we can accomplish more when we all commit to working together.  In fact, he talks about the great opportunities he has had to work with Republicans ranging from Reagan to Bushes 41 and 43. Partisanship, he tells us, must not get in the way of achievement. "I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other."   He goes on to make the case as to why a vote for the Democrats isn't a vote for economic collapse:

 

 

Who’s right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!

 

 

Again; Clinton doesn't suggest that Republican rule will spell the end of America or implode the economy.  He simply points to the record and makes an evidence-based case that Democratic Governments have a history of creating nearly double the number of jobs that Republicans do.  Clinton's lays out his facts told with tantric vigour and makes it clear that he's speaking from his own perspective, not from a position of divine morality.  Nowhere in his speech does he imply that the only path to freedom and prosperity lies through emulating his choices, nor does he suggest fire and brimstone await if America ignores his advice.  He opens the door; he doesn't try to force his audience through it.

 

 

Bill Clinton loves Billy Graham - an affection that stems from Graham's refusal to segregate his congregations at a time of racial tension in American history.  This unwavering commitment to a belief that we are all God's children had a profound impact on a young Bill Clinton; ‘This guy has got to be real," Clinton thought, "because he did this when he didn’t have to.’ ” Graham, for his part, loves Bill Clinton back.  There is no suggestion in this that Graham ignores the sins that many of Clinton's detractors focus on; instead, Graham seems to embody the concept of "What is a good man but a bad man's teacher? What is a bad man but a good man's job?"  A man of God, Graham is a gardener; he understands that positive growth comes from nurturing the good, not through brush fire.

 

 

Now, Graham is calling for repentance of the "American lifestyle" and asking Christians to register as Mathews for his upcoming "My hope with Billy Graham" outreach in 2013.  Much of Graham's mission seems to embrace "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," which comes from John.  So, why Mathew?  The Gospel of Matthew establishes Emmanuel (literally meaning, "God is with us") as one of Jesus' titles. One theme in the Gospel of Matthew is that faith is not the purview of a select group of faithful alone, but that the Word should be made available to everyone.  Another theme is that the mission presented by God was not tasked solely to one party, but to every disciple.

 

 

The question, then, becomes this - what is the "American lifestyle" to which is Graham referring?  The answer might not be what the flock expects.

 

Art Imitates Life

 

 

 

The script was informed by Russell's own experiences with people who have struggled with mental health problems, the filmmaker said on Sunday.

 

 

World War II and the probing fingers of media shot our collective illusions of independent solitude full of wholes.  Now, the immediacy and addictive transparency of social media is shining strobe lights on the glass houses of our inner most selves.  In the words of Don Tapscott, we're all consciously naked in this new reality - yet only some are looking for fig leaves to cover themselves with.  Sprouting up here and there is a willingness to be naked and to let the sun light our souls.

 

 

Those who have stripped themselves of the cloisters of their solitude are being bombarded by consciousness of the world that inhabits them; the ecosystem that we are all, consciously or not, part of.  As the veils of illusion fall away, the realities laid bare are both inspiring and horrifying.  There is no Other; what we fear is just a reflection of ourselves.  Those we look upon as lesser than - less moral, less pragmatic, less sensible, less human - are equally valid in their judgements of us.  Beyond the Garden of Good and Evil, the world is a far less binary place.  There are no easy answers, no simple choices; decisions must be considered with content, context and consequence in mind.

 

 

While these pilgrims grapple with the vertiginous awareness that they are but trees in the forest, there are others who continue to see themselves as islands in the gulf, or points of light in the darkness.  These folk see safety in walls and threats in diversity; to them, reality is as it was intended and the only natural law is survival of the fittest.  The social ecosystem, as diverse and connected as is the natural one is not, to them, evolution; it's a fall over the edge of the world they know. 

 

 

Hence, we round out 2012 with hopeful films about the connectivity of people through space and time like Cloud Atlas and meditations on the silos of the self like Cosmopolis.  Elections on both sides of the Canadian/US border aren't about politics, they're about the end of our countries as we know them.  Even in our outlooks on diversity, we come down to poles.  But the world isn't like that; ours isn't a bipolar existence, it's a cyclical one.  There's also a little film called The Master, which is about people's need to believe in something and what they're willing to sacrifice on behalf of those beliefs.

 

 

What does all this have to do with a film about mentally ill people trying to support each other in building a new life, directed by a man not afraid to talk about his own brushes with mental illness?

 

 

That's for you to interpret.

Two Political Approaches

 

 

Rob Ford - rebellious, stubborn, reliant on gut instinct and fully convinced of us own argumentative superiority.  He's populist in his presentation; he genuinely fights the system on behalf of the little guy.  Lots of them love him for it, but what does he get done?  How much falls through the cracks for not meeting his "so what" smell test?

 

 

 

Adam Vaughan.  Does his homework, prepares his arguments and own the floor.  If you tangle with him, know your stuff inside and outside.  He sure will.

 

 

There's an anti-intellectual movement out there; angry, scared and frustrated people want validation; sugar for the soul in the short term, but it rots you to the core over time.  Then, there's the reasoned, balanced approach of making a case and backing it up. 

 

I would say, we need both.  Balance, not competition, is what is required; if you're too busy tipping to the sides, your forward mobility is limited.

 

Go watch Bill Clinton's DNC 2012 speech for an example of how to best bridge those two approaches.

 

Bill Clinton's Tantric Speekmaking

 

"We believe that 'we're in this together' is a far better philosophy than 'you're on your own.'"

 

- Bill Clinton 

 

 

As someone who actually has read the Kama Sutra, I fully appreciate Scott Feschuk's description of Bill Clinton as a tantric speechmaker.  The man certainly has some skeletons in his sexual closet (Clinton, not Feschuk, at least so far as I know) - but then, to say that trantic sex is just about sex is like saying the Bible is a book about genealogy, or that LOST was about people fighting on an island.

 

 

Clinton weaves a tapestry where we are collaboratively the threads.  Like the best of film makers, his words and presentation create a commonality of experience that, even if you don't believe, you can still taste the magic.

 

 

Whether you follow politics, enjoy writing or think deeply about the issues greater than our individual selves, watch this speech, and enjoy.  You'll thank yourself for doing so.

And Chuck Norris' "Something Much Worse" Than Socialism is - Paul Ryan?

GOP VP Candidate Paul Ryan:

And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.


Got it.  Paul Ryan believes it's the job of the strong to carry the weak; very NDP of him.



GOP Supporter + Icon of Tough Chuck Norris:

“We know you love your family and your freedom as much as Gena and I do, and it is because of that we can no longer sit quietly or stand on the sidelines and watch our country go the way of socialism or something much worse."

Socialism... you know, where those with resources, the strong people, protect the weak.  Especially from themselves.

It's suddenly all clear - the "something much worse" Norris is going to stand against is... Paul Ryan!

Good thing you have Clint and Obama's Chair in your corner, Mr. Ryan - you're gonna need 'em.

Why You Can't Run Government Like A Business

 

 

The mayor’s largely legalistic defence has skirted the real issue — Ford’s unwillingness and/or inability to play by the rules.

 

 

Here' the thing; Rob Ford IS playing by the rules - the rules of business.  He who has the gold makes the rules; if the rules don't work, free market competition either kills the business or shareholders look at the declining value of their shares and boot the bums out.  It's all very natural selection, survival-of-the-fittest.

 

Part and parcel of this process is the "so what?" concept.  Time is money and money is a commodity; you don't get someone's time or capital unless you can answer the question of why your issue is deserving of the boss' attention.  Particularly in today's climate where everyone is so busy all the time, the real trick is to package that message in as brief and compelling a narrative as possible and reflect the established interests of the decision maker.

 

If you're pitching a new process or asking for a raise, there might be merit to demanding employees prove their worth (though the best bosses build loyalty out of anticipating and proactively supporting their teams).  When you're a soldier that has to prove you have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or a mother trying to explain why local social programs will help keep your kid out of gangs, you don't necessarily have the tools, training or energy to build and sell the case to the boss - i.e. the Mayor.  Thing is, in a democracy, it's actually the voter who's boss - not the taxpayer, which would be a shareholder and imply a financial interest, but the voter, who has a social stake in governance.

 

Look at all the problems Rob Ford has had as Mayor; Council that won't vote as they're told, bureaucrats that challenge his positions, media that treat him (poorly) like a public figure and quibbling things like whether or not he's read briefing notes or rule books.  Look - if the details were that important, he's Mayor.  Someone would have come to him with the "so what" answer and he'd know about it.  If they can't convince him in 30 seconds, it really wasn't that vital, was it?  Certainly not to the bottom line, which any good business operator is always focused on.

 

I wouldn't say that Rob Ford is dumb or incompetent - he seems to do well at coaching and his business isn't dead.  I would say that he is functionally fixed on the wrong rules and the wrong game, if he wants to continue as Mayor.  His trial isn't about ignorance, so much as it is about a culture clash between business and politics.

 

Politics is not the same as business.  Yes, we do need better financial management and better integration/efficiency of services, however the end goal of government isn't to build a profitable society but a strong one.  Money's just one piece of that puzzle; leadership, community building, infrastructure and yes, social programs are another.  It's been that way since the day of Kula Rings and potlaches.

 

To be successful in the long run and not run afoul of the actual rules of politics (frequently known as "the law") it is incumbent on politicians like Rob Ford or Tim Hudak to remember one key thing;

 

Being a Political Leader isn't the same as being a CEO - instead, it's more about being Chief Civil Servant.

 

I Don't Think So, Tim...

 

Tim Hudak can't say nobody warned him.

 

 

On just this wee blog, I tried to offer some advice to the PC leader; I actually want to see effective Oppositions, as that's what makes our democracy work.

 

 

I told him he has to stop jumping on every opportunity to stick a finger in opponents' eyes. 

 

I encouraged him that it's delusional and harmful to your brand and your own conscience to assume you can do no wrong, that there's always someone else that's at fault.  Leadership, after all, isn't about avoidance, it's about ownership and responsibility.

 

Alas, Tim chose not to heed this advice, or any of the similar advice that's been directed his way.  In his response to the recent by-election results in Kitchener-Waterloo, he had this to say:

 

“Tonight’s result has shown that public sector unions from across Ontario were provided with the perfect opportunity to concentrate their resources and lash out against the wage freeze we’ve been consistently pushing. They bought Kitchener-Waterloo and now we can expect the rest of Ontario taxpayers to pay for it as the NDP cut more budget deals to keep the Liberals in power."

 

In one foul swoop, he's done the eye-poke and deflected responsibility with nary a mention of Elizabeth Witmer, the PC MPP that held that seat for so long an certainly deserves some emotional support from her former leader.

 

None of this helps his Party's fortunes, helps Ontario in these challenging times, nor is his performance as PC leader doing anything other than tarnishing his personal brand.

 

It's not too late for Hudak to change his ways, in one context or another.

 

I truly hope that Tim Hudak has devoted himself to some introspection; going forward, he needs to either drastically revisit his leadership style or perhaps ask himself if being the boss is really a good fit for him, for his Party, or for Ontario.  He surely has much to offer the Province - just not as a political leader.