Anderkoo

If Sirotta's claim is that progressives should focus on local and state politics, he would be better to restate his sentence, "The Presidency is an empty vessel," not "Barack Obama." posted 06/13/2008 at 11:21:26

I suppose this explains why the number of voters you spoke to dropped off at some point during the spring -- physical cordoning off of the press from the people. posted 06/09/2008 at 12:13:25

Hi David -- an intriguing proposal. RabidRightRebel is making an... interesting comparison to marriage here (I've always felt like the Obama-Clinton rhetoric had a "Parent Trap" tinge to it) which I don't quite agree with, but there is something to the idea that a President + VP should have working chemistry and not just "King and Queen of the Prom" popularity. OTOH maybe we don't a Cheney relationship and going back to the left-out Gore model has some appeal too.

I hear what you're saying about a public discussion, but reading the discussion "forums" here (food fights is a better term, I think), I'm dubious that it would work the way we want it to. I think the libertarian architecture of most existing discussion spaces leaves them leaning towards creating strife and posturing rather than substantive, outcome-oriented discussion. Which is not to say that I don't think a good discussion space and process can happen, just maybe not with something that will attract thousands-millions of people and where highly-motivated, polarized, and not-necessarily-interested-in-listening people can generate a lot more heat than light.

What you propose would be the intent and outcome of such a discussion: take the electorate's temperature? Reach consensus? Vent steam? What would prevent a small handful of malcontents from turning civil discourse into political theater?

Transparency is necessary but not sufficient to democratic participation. Archon Fung's work (Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency) offers some good analysis around this. posted 06/05/2008 at 18:41:34

Zack never implied that they are. The claim that some Christians care about redistribution because of Jubilee doesn't also imply that Jews don't (after all, they -- and Muslims -- share the same Old Testament), nor that you can't arrive at the same set of public policies by other means. I think we're all so used to equating religion with proselytizing that we're ascribing all sorts of claims and motives to Zack's post that just aren't there. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:02:13

There are indeed Christians who are, in a simultaneously postmodern yet faithful way, doing the spiritual equivalent of walking and chewing gum. Rather than hypothesize about who Christians are or aren't, why not take a look at Jim Wallis and the Sojourners movement?

Here in Boston, there's a group of young evangelical and mainline Christians who are together tackling consumerism as an entree into understanding global poverty -- they are mounting campaigns for fair-trade products, and then from there looking at public policy and its role in reifying or fighting global poverty.

Maybe there's a new generation of Christians who've been exposed to postmodernism, to textual deconstruction, to remix culture, to global multiculturalism. The Christians I know believe devoutly, yet acknowledge other religious views. They pray fervently yet understand the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Bible.

Or maybe it's always been there, but suppressed by church leaders or overlooked by mainstream culture. (Just consider how shocking Rev. Wright's rhetoric was to outsiders -- we can still be awfully isolated from each other). After all, my mother-in-law is a practicing physical therapist who simultaneously believes in Creation yet also asserts that human beings' chronic back problems stem from our evolution from four-legged ancestors. posted 04/02/2008 at 17:56:31

Who knew that HuffPo readers were such closed-minded bigots? It doesn't take a Christian to quote scripture in response to the outpouring of vitriol I'm seeing here: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother"s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

In the case of many of the comments below, the plank is keeping you from seeing that there are many Christians who are, at this moment, awakening to the injustices that plague this world -- seeking to fight poverty, global warming, and other so-far intractable problems. Why turn your back on allies? Because you find them distasteful?

"Christians," like "Muslims," "white people," and "immigrants," are not all the same. Don't judge an entire population because George W. Bush happens to consider himself "Christian". (Not that the man is known for church-going, btw).

Get over your prejudices, folks. If you're looking to advance a progressive agenda, we need all the help we can get. posted 04/02/2008 at 17:42:37

On the progressive side of the American political spectrum, values have often taken a back seat to strategic considerations or wonkish policies. The right has therefore been able to occupy the field of values-based politics. And that's a shame, because many of the nation's progressive movements, including abolition and civil rights, were founded or backed by religious values.

It's not enough for progressive politicians to begin cynically sprinkling speeches with Biblical quotes. Zack is right that understanding Christians (and other religious traditions) as they are is so important. And to not lump all "Christians" into one category (just as one would not lump the non-religious in one category, either) but rather understand the nuances among and between them and their understanding of their spiritual responsibilities for humanity and this world.

Invoking the idea of "jubilee" might have some rhetorical power, but to really mobilize Christians around debt relief (or whatever policies jubilee might point towards) requires directly connecting to real communities/churches and focusing on specific action -- no different than any other movement, really. I think Zack is doing a great service by pointing out that the potential energy is there: now we need more people to go forth and activate it. (Shameless plug here: the Boston Faith+Justice Network is doing just that in Massachusetts, among evangelical and mainline Christians). posted 04/01/2008 at 17:10:53

"You only have to read the message boards here at HuffPost to see the sense of outrage whenever anyone dares to offer any criticism of Senator Obama or even suggest that this race isn't over yet."

It's intellectually lazy to use blog commenters as examples. We're all a bunch of hyper-polarized nut cases. Don't make the same mistake Paul Krugman did in his column that the yahoos who waste time blogging and commenting on blogs have some correlation to the real electorate. If polls are to be believed (and they're not), the Clinton supporters are much more polarized at this point, showing a greater willingness to defect to McCain than Obama supporters.

Hillary has ever right to stay in the race; a 10% chance of her winning in April 2008 is just as legitimate as Obama's 10% chance of winning in April 2007. But it's also both campaigns' prerogative to try to win the staring contest, too. Isn't that what the Clinton campaign was doing with their equally condescending suggestion that Obama be VP? posted 04/03/2008 at 14:59:56

(part 2 of 2)

You're backing up the impression that the NYT also offers -- that PA's blue-collar voters want super-concrete plans, which certainly fits with the President-as-manager view. In retrospect I wonder how Romney might have fared if he's stuck with his original selling points and not diverted off into being the social conservative. At a time when much of the electorate long for simple competency, the image (if not the reality) of competence could count for quite a bite.

This idea of the President essentially delivering the pork also aligns with the idea of the President as Prime Minister. It strikes me that what a lot of the electorate really want is a Speaker of the House from their own district.

All of which leads me to question whether American democracy has outgrown its institutions. The President was conceived in a very different time, and today plays too many roles. It seems like we need a national COO (to some extent this is the way the press has treated Greenspan) as well as restoring more prestige to Congress as a co-equal, not subservient, branch of the federal government. To put all of our legislative and judicial hopes on the President seems to me to have inflated that branch of government beyond all reasonable expectations. posted 04/01/2008 at 11:21:53

I think you've put your finger on one of the important distinctions between Clinton and Obama's image (the reality is always unclear until they've been, ahem, tested). Clinton, though perhaps not to the degree of Bill (and I think she benefits from some of his wonkish reputation rubbing off on her) seems to love a multitude of small-bore solutions. Obama, in his current incarnation, doesn't give off that same sense. (Ironically, early in his campaign he had taken that tack and was strongly rebuffed. If you've ever heard him pontificate, he can sure deliver some law prof style snoozing).

To oversimplify here, there seems to be a struggle in the electorate between the President as chief manager vs. President as head visionary. The Constitution as originally conceived supports the former. But the Constitution itself evolved, though the vestige of the electoral college points to that earlier conception. Popularly electing a good manager seems like a foolish way to hire a CEO. That's why municipalities like mine have now separated the job of mayor from city manager.

(part 1 of 2) posted 04/01/2008 at 11:20:52

Hi Amanda, very insightful as always! j/k this seems to be on your RSS feed... posted 03/31/2008 at 18:00:01

Thanks yet again, Mayhill. This is the kind of on-the-ground reporting that blogging is all about! Don't let that weariness get to you; for real Americans, the race for President is still fresh, and everyone still wants to be involved, pundits be damned. Please keep up the great reporting, and drive safely! posted 03/31/2008 at 18:08:15

Great stuff again, Mayhill. There's another lesson I take from your examples: the role of a powerful man's wife can be mind-numbingly difficult to bear. For an extremely intelligent and ambitious woman like Hillary Rodham to be trapped like this is disgraceful. Yet it's what we expect from our First Lady. (Remember when Dr. (Mrs.) Dean was criticized for continuing her practice while Howard campaigned?)

I remember how humiliating it was for the public and the press to call for Hillary to act like a wife in 1992, and when she was forced to come out with some inane cookie recipe to prove her femininity (or, perhaps more accurately, her husband's masculinity). So it was with some sense of vengeance that I was pleased to vote for her in 2000 -- to see her make her own career and shine without Bill's light.

So it's with great disappointment that I watch her campaign in 2008, radiating a weird combination of privilege and victimhood. It seems that all those bitter years living in the shadow of Bill and delaying her own goals -- raisin in the sun indeed! -- has crippled her ability to be human again. It's a shame, because I think she has so much to offer. And it's an affront to American women that we continue to have such inhuman expectations of wives. But that's no reason to support her in this particular election at this particular juncture in time. posted 03/27/2008 at 10:58:56

Great -- time for the anti-religious bigots to come out of the woodwork.

Don't make the mistake of lumping all "evangelicals" into the same basket. That's no different than any other form of "ism."

Faith and spirituality are powerful forces that move us beyond narrow self-interest. If I have any hope to slow climate change, it's because Christians have come on board. A rational economist would tell you that we can just "deal with" climate change. Only people who have a spiritual commitment to this planet -- whether because of Christian "stewardship" or pagan values or whatever connects you to Earth -- have a good argument for why we should care.

The same is true for poverty and a host of other issues that don't have to do with freedom but rather our mutual responsibility.

Make fun of evangelicals and other Christians at your own peril. If you're a progressive, you'd be turning away some potentially powerful allies. posted 03/26/2008 at 13:51:40