The Republican’s 2010 deal with the devil
By Andrew Dyrli Hermeling
There can be little doubt that 2010 was a resounding victory for the Republican party. Taking control of the House will effectively end the two years of liberal policy and bring a return to the slogging legislative battles that Americans find far more comfortable. But will 2010′s successes cost the GOP the White House in 2012?
Ummm... uhhh... well... how should I put this so everyone is happy...
Probably the best illustration of this point took place yesterday on Meet the Press. Republican Eric Cantor, upon being asked if birther rants were “crazy-talk” stammered his way along a tight rope trying to express his true beliefs (which a reasonable observer could see was an affirmative) while not alienating the energy behind 2010′s victory. Welcome to the 2012 campaign. Obama remains popular. He responds to the American people, is level-headed, and as the tax-compromise indicates, is willing to move right of center when the American people demand it (see an excellent post at The Erstwhile Conservative.) Early indications seem to show that Americans are content with simpley removing Pelosi, effectively keeping the government moderate. This is great news of Boehner, bad news for Romney.
If we now look towards 2012, we have a battle between an incumbent who has shown he can be moderate when the time calls for it, and a slew of candidates slugging it out in primaries dominated by die-hards, many of whom are now self-described Tea Partiers. The first indication of the vicious forthcoming battle: the election of a Tea Partier as Republican State Chairperson. The money will continue to flow from the Tea Party. Statistics show that extreme candidates bring the big bucks, but don’t bring the votes (see Christine O’Donnell.) Michelle Bachmann is slated to deliver a separate Tea Party response to the State of the Union. The Tea Party has shown it is unwilling to compromise. Can Romney or Pawlenty keep them under the umbrella? Or are we on the fast track to another 1992, with Palin cast into the role of Perot? The Tea Party succeeded in 2010 because moderates were as scared of the National Debt as the Tea Party. But a presidential election is not like a mid-term election. It is a race between two people, not a conglomeration of 472 races.
Now that the Republican party has welcomed the Tea Party and all of its rabid and willing donors, can it abandon it? If if does, could we see a potential third-party candidate? If it doesn’t, will the party keep the moderates who swung back to them so dramatically in 2010? I think the answers to all of these questions should give the Republicans a lot to worry about.
The New Year = Big news in 2010 that won’t seem so big in 2011
By Andrew Dyrli Hermeling
Everyone knows that the media [and bloggers] have a way of blowing certain stories out of proportion in an attempt to make their existence a little more justified. Sometimes they are right (swine flu) and sometimes they are wrong (bird flu). In the spirit of the new year I have decided to post my top five 2010 stories that will prove to be blips rather than booms a year from now.
5. Kim Jung-il announces successor – Considering that his successor, Kim Jung-un has been raised in the same intellectual cave where his father was raised, the vowel in their respective names will be the only real change.
4. Ground Zero Mosque – This story is already disappearing for a number of reasons. First, it isn’t really a mosque. Second, many Christian leaders are actually in support of it since they have the foresight to know that any restriction of religious freedom could someday come back to bite them in the butt. Third, have you seen pictures of the building…? It looks pretty awesome.
3. Ban on Earmarks – Congress vows to crack down on earmarks… then proposes eye-droppers to assist in Gulf cleanup. NEXT!
2. WikiLeaks - Simply put, WikiLeaks has proven to be all foam, no beer. In fact, the only thing I find truly offensive about the whole situation is the attention given to it. For example, anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to global politics knows that Sunni Muslims make up the majority in every Muslim country except Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan (although I will give a free pass to those who didn’t know the latter two). A quick Islamic history lesson or even a quick perusal of current Iraqi state building will make it quite clear that there is little love between these two groups. So obviously Iran makes Syria nervous. What will Julian tell us next, that there is tension between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland? Keep stories about Qaddafi’s nurse where they belong, in People magazine.
1. The Tea Party – I know this sounds like my usual Tea Party bashing, but I promise that it is not. They mobilized voters in 2010 with great success. However, regardless of what politicians get done or leave undone in the new year, the Tea Party has had its moment. Allow me to explain. Let’s play pretend…
Scenario #1. Boehner et. al. follow to a tee (pun intended) the mandate handed to them and the moderates who were swayed to vote Republican by the spectre of deficit will consider the job done and move on. Furthermore, just as Bill Clinton heeded the people’s cry for a balanced budget in 1994, Obama and the Democrats are forced to do the same in order to have even a prayer in 2012. While many voters agreed with the Tea Party on issues of spending, they are not ready to embrace their more reactionary views on race or the environment. Thus, with spending under control, moderates do what they do best, swing back and forth holding the radical wings of either party in check.
Scenario #2 (the most likely scenario) – If the Tax Cut Compromise is any indication, the Tea Party endorsed candidates that were elected will prove no match for politics as usual and both parties will find themselves bogged down by the usual unwillingness to cut their preferred spending. With Dems still holding onto the Senate, it is unlikely that the new Health Care Reform will be cut down while the House will continue to resist any cuts in military spending. Furthermore, reasonable people will finally realize that while the Tea Party sure does complain a lot, in the end they are unwilling to do what it takes to actually fix the problem. (In all fairness, Glenn Beck does make the point that anyone who advocates spending cuts must be willing to cut military spending, although he is surely in the minority here.)
Either way, I don’t see much of a future need for Tea Party energy
Is Arizona simply enforcing federal law?
By Sarah
People who claim to have read the immigration law claim that SB 1070 is just reinforcing federal law. While this is partly true, it’s partly false.
Here are some of the major differences (there are still others).
1. Federal law does not require Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to go looking for people who might be undocumented immigrants. They focus on large violations or those involving potential terrorists or violent criminals. The Arizona state requires law enforcement to act as local ICE agents (without the required contract with the federal government), but goes beyond the job description of those agents. Here’s what the law says:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. (Section 2E)
The logic here is a bit circular, but a public offense that makes the person removable would be that they are undocumented, and for that the should be arrested.
There are two problems here. First, while Section 2b requires a police officer to check immigration status during their regular duties (i.e. a traffic stop), this does not. This indicates that police can stop any random person on no other suspicion other than they look like they might be undocumented.
Secondly, this section is a clear violation of the purpose of the controversial 287(g) program, which, in ICE’s own words, focuses on “criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or are a danger to the community.” Participating in this program is the only way a local police department can enforce federal immigration laws, so Arizona is violating federal law by requiring police departments act as federal agents though the federal government has not authorized them to do so.
2. Federal law has determined that violations of immigration laws are civil violations, not criminal violations, and are to be settled in an immigration court, rather than a criminal court.
IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH: 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE. 2. IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a). (Section 3A)
A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR… (Section 3G)
While popular opinion among some camps has determined that those without proper documentation are “criminals,” federal law has not. An immigration violation is akin to a speeding ticket (though maybe lots of speeding tickets). Arizona, however, has made it a crime. It would be like me getting a speeding ticket, going to criminal court, and possibly having to go to jail.
3. It is not a federal crime to assist an immigrant. In fact, many churches and humanitarian organizations set up spots in the desert along the southern border to provide water and food to border crossers, on humanitarian grounds. These folks are not violating any law. However, the Arizona law seems to also makes this a crime (though these are written poorly and the actual intent is unclear):
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO:
TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. (Section 5 [13-2929] A. 1-2)
THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. (Section 9.4)
It seems that, in Arizona, churches and humanitarian groups that want to make sure that people don’t die in the desert will be arrested for doing what they believe is their Biblical mandate – to aid the alien, the fatherless, and the widow. This is why some churches have made a big deal about this portion of this law.
Arizona Eliminates History and English Programs
By Sarah
In a bold, unexpected move, the recent immigration law passed in Arizona that promotes racial profiling actually also promotes the inclusion of non-White authors and historical events into their educational requirements.
In addition to its immigration provisions, the law states a few new prohibitions on courses, one of them being courses that “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.” It seems that, despite the fact that acting on racial stereotypes and acts of racial discrimination are being promoted through this law, lawmakers are trying to make amends by adjusting their curriculum to ensure they teach about all the people that contributed to who we are as a nation today, not just those who are White. It’s incredibly insightful of the Arizona legislature to recognize that History and English classes are designed primarily for White students.
I’m being facetious.
Arizona law does vow to pull funding from schools who allow courses designed for a particular ethnic group, but only other ethnic groups, not the European ethnic group. Regarding this requirement, Fox News assures us this requirement doesn’t prohibit teaching about the Holocaust and other acts of genocide. Thank goodness!
State Superintendent for Public Instruction Tom Horne stated that:
“Traditionally, the American public school system has brought together students from different backgrounds and taught them to be Americans and to treat each other as individuals, and not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds,” and that “Ethnic studies programs teach the opposite, and are designed to promote ethnic chauvinism.”
And this Arizona law proves that very point. Years of teaching White ethnic studies courses have in fact taught Arizona residents to lump (“Mexican-looking”) immigrants into one category – illegal! White chauvinism on display.
The school system is not ethnically unbiased, but does, in fact, promote European values, histories, and traditions, despite the fact that “America” is an amalgam of ethnicities, and the values of those ethnic groups, which contribute to and are part of “American” values, are part of what makes this country great.
Another type of course the legislation prohibits are those that promote overthrow of the government or promotes the resentment towards a group of people based on their race or “class.” It seems the Arizona legislature is chanelling Lou Dobbs.
I wonder how many people in the legislature are part of the Tea Party. Some of those folks are calling for secession, and they’re getting their guns ready in case they have to, well, overthrow the government. But their secession is probably OK.
Woops! Sorry to focus on White hypocrisy instead of the topic at hand: reqonquista.
In sum, the legislation promotes the formation of and action on racial stereotypes of a particular group, and legitimizes the conspiracy theories of White supremacists, who believe that Mexicans are getting ready to take back the land that truly, at one time, was theirs.
Yet the problem is with teachers promoting racism?
So while this legislation promotes acting on racial stereotypes (which also could be worded promoting acts of racism) the legislators expect it won’t promote resentment? What’s the old folksy phrase – “actions speak louder than words.”
I could use an expletive.
I’m not even sure how to end this.
Expletive.
* How does Lou Dobbs fit in? While on CNN, he was always going off about La Raza (which means “The People” not “The Race” as people like Dobbs claim) and reqonquista (the belief that Mexicans want to take back the Southwest), and other conspiracy theories regarding those we had conquered and taken land from in the South West.
The Christian Witness to the State
By Austin
Drew’s post this morning on his philosophical breakdown in his critique of the Tea Partiers is interesting. He points out that faith informs us no matter what, so what’s the difference between his view of transgendered rights based on Galatians 3, and Sarah Palin?
Obviously a lot. But what? In two of my posts (here and here). I’ve begun to think about this, but Drew has provoked me: what is the Christian witness to the state? How ought faith and politics work together? I noted in those posts that “faith” or “belief” cannot merely be compartmentalized, as if the were free-flowing ideas picked and thrown into a soup of “political ideas.” They holistically inform us, as Drew says. So what’s appropriate?
One of Drew’s implicit insights is that everyone has a theology. Everyone. Atheists politicians and Christian politics alike. Everyone has that end-point where they can do nothing but worship, whether that be some god or science, some document (like the Constitution of the Tea Partiers) or an ideal of progress. Clearly there is a continuum – we hedge against too much theology in our politics, like that “wall of separation,” but we can’t but help ourselves. In Calvin’s words, we are a factory of idols.
If this is the case we must find an appropriate way to relate to the state. Fortunately for Jews and Christians, there are some very pressing internal criteria for this relation. It should not be:
a. Idolatrous. The state’s goals and being cannot be conflated with God. Almost all states in history have somehow or other claimed the authority of God (especially over life and death), and implicitly or explicitly identified themselves with God. The Tea Party’s rituals during the health care protests divinize a mythic “America,” as do progressives who in the 60′s and 70′s saw secularism as the answer to the world’s political prayers.
b. Our Primary allegiance. Let’s state this clearly: our primary allegiance is not to our country, but to God’s nation. “Citizenship in heaven” does not mean our citizenship is “spiritual.” This passage talks about the transformation of the body. We are put in the midst of a world that is broken and hostile, a sleeper cell called witness to the coming reign of God in the middle of all this hate and violence, loving our enemies when others won’t, preaching God’s all-inclusive when our nation preaches an exclusive love based on soil.
To state this all positively: we worship the one God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also the head of our country. Yet this reign is not fully here, and in the in-between time we are empowered through the Spirit to bring his policies – justice and peace, healing and community, reconciliation and love – into this present evil age.
So Drew is right about “civic religion.” For the Christian, that would be idolatrous. The U.S. is not nor ever has been a Christian nation. The kingdom of God is a Christian nation, with Christ as head. The Christian’s witness takes off from this fact.
Yet this doesn’t mean you can’t see certain characteristics of God’s kingdom in nations at times. Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to traditions in American thought that are certainly congruent with the kingdom of God, like equality (no wonder – he was a preacher!). The theologian John Howard Yoder called these “middle axioms”, places where the kingdom of God and the world meet. As citizens of this kingdom, these axioms enable us to communicate the policies of this kingdom to the nations, or as Drew says, practitioners of other faiths or non-faith.
In summary to this rather long response to Drew: faith and politics are always together, but as Christians our primary allegiance is to the kingdom of God, not to our country. We participate in our country’s politics because that is one place where we can advocate for the policies of this kingdom (but there are other places too!), and we will often do this through “middle axioms.” When this becomes a problem is when our nation (whether current or more a mythological “America”) usurps the place of God.
Yet as long as we realize who we worship, and where our allegiance lies, our faith empowers our politics. In future posts, I’ll talk more about some political axioms…
leave a comment