And I find it hard not to be thinking and talking about politics right now. First of all, things are really interesting. From the Bernie Sanders surge to Scalia's death to everything that comes out of Trump's mouth... There's so much that's going on that has some real interesting ramifications. But secondly, I'm finding myself on the opposite side of the more public face of American Evangelicalism, from Jerry Falwell Jr.'s statements on guns ("If more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in.") to Franklin Graham attempting to defend Trump's religiosity to InterVaristy's inclusion of Black Lives Matter at Urbana. It's a complex landscape of ideas.
Before getting into things, I want to start with the following article: When it Comes to Politics, You're Not as Rational as you Think. I point to this because it's important to deal in the reality of how we think about the whole subject of politics. We think about politics like lawyers. That makes the challenge of discerning "right" and "wrong" much more difficult, and calls into question in many situations where there is even such a thing as "right" and "wrong" in politics. It's probably the case that there's no underlying "truth" in politics, despite there being true statements about politics. This is no different than there not always being a "right" and "wrong" answer in a business setting. You have this priority or that priority, and you try to do things to accomplish those priorities in balance with each other.
On Trump: I don't support Donald Trump at all. I'd rather vote for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, and that's a huge concession because I'm one of the very many people who have a negative view of Clinton. I admit that I don't really understand the support that he finds among Christians. There's an article in the Atlantic that explores the divide. There is clearly a strand of Evangelical Christian thought that supports Donald Trump, though I'm not sure I completely buy the reasoning provided in the link. I don't think "pragmatism" drives their perspective as much as "anger." But there are lots of elements of that particular subset of Christianity that I disagree with, so I'm not surprised I don't agree with the analysis. (I'm greatly amused at the "mixture" of candidates that are supported, as if there is only one political party and only three candidates: "We have Rubio folks, Cruz folks and Trump folks.") I appreciate Max Lucado's recent blog post in which he really takes a close look at the Trump as a person that conveys a particular character:
I don't know Mr. Trump. But I've been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made mockery of a reporter's menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as "mommy," and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people "stupid," "loser," and "dummy." These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.Ultimately, I plan to vote my values. And as much as Clinton doesn't represent my values, she does so better than Trump. I'd rather lose in politics and vote those principles than forgo principles for political expediency or "pragmatism." (Note: I don't even think there's anything political expeditious about Trump. But that's a whole separate story.)
Such insensitivities wouldn't even be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith? I'm bewildered, both by his behavior and the public's support of it.
On guns: I'm not anti-gun. But I'm not pro-gun. They're just part of the landscape of America, like cars and highways. But just as the streets of a city are a lot different from the streets of a small country town, so are the impacts of guns and gun ownership. My position on guns is that we need to be smarter. Most people don't really handle guns that well because they've never been trained and many have never actually used guns in a "functional" manner (meaning things like hunting or military service). That leads to a certain lack of respect for guns. I think this is reflected in Jerry Falwell's comment that I quoted above. When you literally lead with killing a whole group of people as part of your support of guns, I think you're heading down a very dangerous path.
I'd like to push the car analogy further. I think that people who own guns need to be licensed to operate them, and I believe that guns themselves must be registered and tracked. All sales of guns should be tracked, whether done by commercial operations or by individual owners (and I'll even allow exceptions for "People that want to occasionally sell guns" with restrictions on the number of guns that you sell -- exactly the same way as you can privately sell a few cars without needing a license). People should have periodic checks of their gun competency. I don't believe that this creates an undue burden on people who own guns nor is it an overreach by the government. (Compare this with the fact that people can by drones off the internet for a hundred dollars but will be required to be licensed to operate the drones and must have their drones registered.)
On Race: Volumes and volumes of books and articles have been and will continue to be written on the subject. Here is one article of thousands: Institutional Racism is Our Way of Life. I don't fully support the Black Lives Matter movement. I disagree with their tactics and with some elements of the message. And while I agree that all lives matter as well, I think that this is a non-starter rebuttal. The Black Lives Matter movement is not grounded in saying that other lives don't matter. Rather, there are problems that exist for the black community that don't exist for others. Many people don't believe it because they don't experience it and don't know people who have experienced it.
My view of race has been greatly shaped by my experiences with InterVarsity. Here's an InterVarsity video that was put together a while ago that speaks to the issue in a way that resonates with me. I support their willingness to stand with those who are hurting, even at the risk of losing support. I understand their desire to try to stand up with a community the way that they have as part of an expression of their theology of racial issues. I think the first thing to do is to listen. Here's the video: Michelle Higgins at Urbana. I think most people formed their beliefs based on what they heard about what was said, and not based on what was actually said. You might still disagree with her when you get to the end, but at least you listened.
On Money and Taxes: I was in a conversation a while ago that went political. In the conversation, the question was asked, "Do you mean that *I* don't have a right to *my* money that *I* earned?" Well, yes, at least if I'm looking at things from a theological perspective. Within the Christian community, we often talk about money in terms of stewardship. And if you believe that, then you don't shouldn't believe that it's your money because the whole point of stewardship is that you don't own it.
If you accept that, the consequences are pretty significant. The early church didn't think capitalistically. In fact, I would say that the most accurate word to describe their economy was "socialism." They sold what they had, and they held things in common. But if you focus on that, you'll miss the next sentence: "They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need." One thing that Bernie Sanders is right about is that wealth disparity is a very serious issue, and I believe that he's right that this is a moral issue. If the economy grows more slowly because the wealthy are taxed more, but those taxes go to support programs to help the poor, then I'm okay with that. After all, I'm in the top 0.5% if you believe the calculations on the website. (Even if it's wrong, I don't think it's wrong in a significant way. I would be absolutely shocked if I were not in the top 5% globally, and being off by a factor of 10 wouldn't significantly alter my view.)
But I'm not okay with the idea of a $15/hour minimum wage. I think there are serious issues with believing that every job should pay enough to make a "livable wage." It's terrible that there are people trying to support families working at McDonald's at an entry-level position, because that's a pretty impossible task. But the problem is that this means you're also paying the 17-year old high school student enough money to raise a family with, and that de-incentives all sorts of things. (During the boom years in Las Vegas, the allure of $100,000/year jobs as a valet drove down the level of education that people pursue, and now that the economy is not booming there are lots of people struggling mightily to figure out what to do.)
On Education: The last point brings me to my point. Obviously, I'm a proponent of education. But I think a big mistake that's being made nationally (though not as much in NV) is the monetization of the 4-year degree as the degree that everyone must pursue. If you're Facebook friends with my NSC doppelganger, you'll know that I'm strongly supportive of 2-year degree programs in trades. Why? I really think that this is one of the parts of the educational spectrum (and by extension, the economy) where we're failing the hardest (right up there with screwing K-12 educators and screwing up K-12 education). There are a lot of people in the knowledge economy (myself included) that have money but lack skills. If something goes wrong with my plumbing, I'm going to pay someone good money to fix it. And anything electrical that requires me to go deeper than an electrical box is also going to a professional who is going to charge me $50/hour.
I draw a clear distinction in my mind between being educated and having a degree. A degree is a piece of paper that affirms you've completed some set of classes. An education is a set of experiences that one has learned from in order to be a more complete and functional individual. The current push towards 4-year degrees is a push for degrees, not a push for education. By including trade-specific programs, we reclaim the idea of an education, and this is a big win for all. I think this shift alone would have a significant impact on the student debt problem AND the income problem because fewer people would be chasing 4-year degrees and incurring 4-year debt to get it. (Incidentally, I see student debt as the next financial crisis. But that's yet another topic for yet another day.) I see successful trade programs housed at community colleges as a meaningful on ramp for upward financial mobility from the lower levels of the economy. That hits on social justice concerns. I have a hard time seeing negatives in encouraging an increase of tradesmen and tradeswomen.
-----------------------------------------
So there you have it. A small subset of my political views that I've attempted to articulate. Do with it what you will.
