Not About Race

Well, the presidential election hoopla seems to finally be over. I don't know how many times I heard or read it referred to as one of the biggest events in American history. It seems that at a substantial number of people in America (as well as the rest of the world) think that we just elected a black president. They also think it's an historic milestone in our country's history.

I am not so sure I agree with these claims. For starters, my understanding is that President Obama's mother was white. So he is as much white as he is black. Since when do the blacks get to lay claim to the bi-racials in America? If genetics isn't what signifies race in America, then what does? How much black do you have to have in your blood to be considered black in America? Apparently not more than 50%!

But let's suppose that Mr. Obama were black. Would it be a most remarkable milestone in American history? Despite Oprah's tears on election night, I don't think so. Let me explain why.

I've been around a few years now, and for as long as I can remember, whatever happened in America that was controversial or high publicity would be sure to draw the attention of high profile black crusaders. Jesse Jackson at times seemed ubiquitous. I wondered how he could be a reverend of any church and seem to show up all over the country all the time. Why did he show up at so many events and incidents? To play the "race card." Rev. Jackson wanted to be sure we knew how racist everything was in America.

It wasn't long before he was joined by Rev. Al Sharpton. Apparently they thought they could "divide and conquer." It wasn't long before Sharpton seemed almost as ubiquitous as Jackson. And for the really, really big stuff --- they both would show up. They would play the racist trump card, and make everything about race. Workers unions, school administration, local government, police brutality, immigration and all sorts of issues became "highly racist."

Most of us white people would hear about this and think, "Huh? What's racist about that?" Quite honestly, we saw no racism involved. And then others joined the band. Rev. Jeremiah Wright (who was President Obama's pastor for several years) preached some outlandish sermons - in the name of racism. The world was shocked at what he had to say. At least Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton were cool enough not to be so outrageous and inflammatory with their racist claims. Perhaps they saw themselves more as crusaders, along the lines of Rev. Martin Luther King.

It doesn't escape me that all of these inflammatory personalities who have antagonized America have Rev. in front of their name. I wonder if there's a connection. I wonder if they don't understand that America sees Dr. King in a whole different light than we see these guys - who sometimes act like real buffoons.

So here's what I think is most remarkable about President Obama's election. If he's black, his election doesn't really accomplish anything. Instead it proves something. It proves that it was never about race in the first place. There may be a few idiots in America who are still racist and consider blacks to be a lesser race. But the vast majority of Americans don't see race as an issue. If I'm not mistaken, more white people voted for Obama than black people!

Perhaps now that we have this so-called black president, the antagonistic personalities will stop making their livelihood off of playing the race card in America. That game is truly over; Obama's election proved it, once and for all.

We Could Do More

So a couple of weeks ago, we had a few couples at our house for the evening. The conversation drifted to the state of society today. One man, whom I won’t name but whom I dearly love, launched into a tirade against what he seemed to consider lazy Christians who don’t do enough in American society. He appears to see the travesty unfolding of people in America who are suffering in extreme poverty, teens who are not parented, criminals who are not rehabilitated and more. It was shocking to see him descend into anger over this situation.

As I later processed what I had witnessed in my own home that evening, I began to wonder if my dear friend might not be aware of how history has shaped our current culture. I agree with him that today’s Christians don’t do enough to shape our society. We could do so much more to change the world we live in. But I am cognizant of the fact that history has an awful lot to do with it. By that I mean that our government maybe had a role in training us to behave the way we behave. I think this is true in many respects, actually. But it is relatively easy to trace that path to philanthropy and social endeavors.

Advent of Big Government
President Roosevelt, whom of course was way before my time, has a reputation for having been one of our country’s greatest leaders. However, closely examining history, you may find that the truth --- played out in his policies in the decades that followed his presidency, may not be so rosy.

Revisit Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days, which began with his March 4, 1933 inaugural. Seventy-five years ago this coming week FDR's big push climaxed with the National Industrial Recovery Act, officially known as the Act of June 16, 1933, which established the National Recovery Administration (NRA).

One big difference between then and now, though, is that in 1933 the materially depressed United States was in crisis, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed to act. His effective rhetoric did lift American spirits, and that was important. Yet New Deal programs that rolled through a Congress of 313 Democrats and 117 Republicans ended up prolonging the Depression, at least from the perspectives of many historians.

The NRA established a bureaucracy that led even the FDR-supportive Washington Post to note "the difficulty the business man has in keeping informed of these codes, supplemental codes, code amendments, executive orders, administrative orders, office orders, interpretations, rules, regulations and obiter dicta." The NRA would not allow prices to be lowered, so millions of people did not buy what they could not afford. The NRA demanded above-market wage rates for those newly hired, and the result was prolongation of high unemployment as businesses were reluctant to make hires.

Roosevelt could push through such government-growing legislation not only because of congressional dominance: he artfully used biblical allusions. In his first inaugural address, for example, FDR argued that America's land was bountiful and should be productive, but the problem was that "unscrupulous money changers . . . have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish." Then came the good news: "The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths."

The political application of these New Testament references soon became clear: Roosevelt wanted to increase federal power through "national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character." The era of big government had begun. Roosevelt threatened to become dictatorial if Congress balked. "I shall then ask the Congress for . . . the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."

Roosevelt was also adept at practical politics. Depression-era property tax revenues were down, so city officials had less money to spend. Demands from constituents for jobs and other favors were up. When New York City Democrats in 1933 laid off city employees and reduced services, Republican Fiorello La Guardia won election as mayor. Democratic urban machines across the country needed money, and fast, if they were to avoid similarly unceremonious boots—and Roosevelt's radically increased spending rescued them.

For example, Roosevelt gave Chicago Mayor Edward J. Kelly funds that enabled him to build a subway, airport, new roads and parks, public housing projects, and 30 new schools. Since the federal government paid 88 percent of Chicago's relief and jobs costs, the state government 11 percent and the city itself only one penny of every dollar, Kelly did not have to raise property taxes to pay for these projects. He received new terms as mayor in 1935, 1939, and 1943, and delivered Illinois to Roosevelt four times.

City by city, Roosevelt also used the urban machines to turn out people at marches and demonstrations that he then cited as proof of popular support for his programs. Many economists opposed the National Recovery Administration, with its price-fixing and wage-setting schedules. They complained about the biggest non-wartime intrusion on economic freedom in American history.

News pages, though, played up the human interest of 100,000 children assembled on the Boston Common to repeat this pledge: "I promise as a good American citizen to do my part for the NRA. I will buy only where the Blue Eagle flies. . . . I will help President Roosevelt bring back good times."

Combining religious rhetoric and power politics, Roosevelt consistently tried to show his followers that they could construct a stairway to heaven. To do that, however, he had to dump on the private efforts that apparently could build the stairway only halfway up: Bennington College professor James McCamy concluded that New Deal publicists were deliberately trying to discredit private institutions so as to promote a "shift of loyalty from private to public authority and decision."

Church vs. Government Relief
MIT economist John Gruber last year confirmed that Roosevelt succeeded in having New Deal governmental programs crowd out private giving. "Church relief made up 90 percent of the income of the poor before the New Deal," he found out: "Government relief made up 90 percent of the income of the poor after the New Deal." Gruber found that church and charitable giving held up well in 1929 after the stock market crash and did not drop until 1933 when the New Deal began. Then and only then did church spending for charitable purposes fall by one-third.

But, due to a conservative Supreme Court, the federal government did not grow as fast as Roosevelt wished. The justices in 1935 found the NRA to be an unconstitutional depriving of liberty, and FDR temporarily backtracked—only to come out swinging in his reelection campaign. Throughout 1936 Roosevelt alternated fiery speeches with pastorals, such as the one he gave in North Carolina based on the 23rd Psalm's teaching: "He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters."

Roosevelt argued that the declarations about God from 3,000 years ago could be replaced by declarations coming from Washington now: If wages were raised, those who "work in the mill or in the office" could have "a life in green pastures and beside still waters." Voters preferred that hope to the medicine GOP candidate Alf Landon offered, and Democratic domination of Capitol Hill became so great that only 88 Republicans were left to wander disconsolately through the House chamber.

So you see, my friend was right in his conclusion that the churches should be leading the social change in our society. He was right to opine that churches should be the major feeders of the hungry, ministering to the poor. And the fact of the matter is that this used to be the case! Churches in America were the primary source of social services – until FDR came along with his plan to save the world. And save the country he did. Now our churches and organized Christians sit and watch our inept government neglect the poor, the impoverished, the downtrodden and the misfortunate. And while billions of government dollars are poured into these social causes, our country continues to, as my friend might put it, “go to hell in a hand-basket.”

Today’s Christians could of course do much, much more to positively influence the society that we Americans live in. But today’s voters would do well to consider how history plays out – and make voting decisions based on truth and not just perception. Today’s politicians are giving us short-term fixes for immediate problems. But as history can teach (if we’re teachable), short term fixes to immediate problems often have long-term … and unintended … ramifications.

Listen to what current presidential candidates McCain and Obama have to tell you about how they’ll use government to forge a better America. Then try to consider what long term outcomes could result from the short term fixes they’ll propose – and you will embrace.

Barack Obama's House

I am watching the Obama euphoria and wondering who this man really is. There are many questions, and not a lot of answers. Curiously, I noticed a story on-line a couple of days ago that I have yet to see in the American media.

The Times of London broke a story over the weekend about how Mr. & Mrs. Obama funded their current home --- with a loan from a criminal. To make the irony even more pathetic, the criminal's wife purchased the empty lot next door to the Obama's new home --- the same day. But of course, there is said to be "no connection."

The buyer of the empty lot next door, on the same day, is an Iraqi national of Great Britain. Imagine the odds of them purchasing an empty garden plot adjacent to Mr. Obama's new home --- with no house. Then imagine that the two transactions (theirs and the Obama's) closed on exactly the same day. Then imagine that they had "loaned" Mr. Obama's campaign $3.5 million just before that.

Barack Obama himself is quoted as saying that this was "just a bonehead stupid mistake." But really, one has to wonder why he just didn't call his local mortgage company to get a loan to buy the house --- like the rest of the America he wants to lead.

Check out the story at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece.

I'm a registered Republican myself, so don't have a particular bone to pick with Obama. But more and more I am thinking Hillary Clinton was right when she said this man "has not been fully vetted." Sadly, it appears that the American media is so intoxicated with "obamaphoria" that they are incapable fo fully vetting this man. So I guess we'll have to turn to the Times of London to find out more about who this man is.