Trent--The Problematic Alliance of the Christian Ideology and Conservatism

I cannot claim to speak for all Christians obviously, but I believe that Christians employ incorrect tactics when trying to spread their religion. The problem with evangelicalism is the focus on Jesus Christ. You might say that...well...that is the focal point of Christianity. It is...but is the man (divine, whatever) the most important aspect, or his teachings?

Whenever I hear an evangelical or Christian missionary, all I hear is: "You must accept Jesus Christ into your heart to be saved." "You must accept that he died for your sins."

Is that all? What about what Jesus taught? Yet at the same time, I often hear the practice of preaching Old Testament justice. Vengeful, eye for an eye rhetoric. Promises of eternal damnation for those who do not accept Jesus. Somehow, these ideas are also tied to conservatism. The conservatives believe they have the moral majority and their rhetoric is often tied to Christian ideology--evangelical ideology.

This is where the hypocrisy begins. Conservatives pick and choose what teachings to borrow from the bible to justify their behavior. War can be waged with a vengeful and wrathful God at your back. The God that flooded the world and struck down Sodom and Gomorrah. An Old Testament interpretation of God can justify the passing of judgement on all those who are believed to be behaving un-Chritstian like. By accepting the idea of Jesus Christ can save your soul no matter if you live by His teachings or not.

However, a New Testament interpretation of God, the actuall teachings of Jesus Christ are often not followed. Teachings of toleration, not sitting in judgment of others, compassion, and forgiveness. That wouldn't jive with the politics of the right. The right continues to claim the moral majority, but it is flawed. Many Christian conservatives simply use he teachings of the bible to support their own intolerances or predjudices.

The bible makes many pronouncements that are simply unworkable in a modern society. I do not think it is right that those who consider themselves people of faith should pick and choose which ones apply and which ones do not. Instead they should focus on the true teachings of their Savior and live by them.

Stuart--- Imposed Democracy

Democratization is a topic that is alive and well with political bloggers across the net and indeed, with political scholars across the world. We have had both articles and comments on this very site, regarding the obligations of the US to "encourage" democracy in other nations, and specifically, the imposition of democracy in Iraq... I would like to examine some other attempts at externally "encouraging" democracy. In Latin America, the US has had a history of active involvement in encouraging regime change, both through external political pressure (trade sanctions and favored treatment) as well as direct involvement (such as the transfer of arms to the Contra groups). The results were not ideal, and in fact, many of these states lack many of the institutional characteristics necessary for a democracy. The Latin American example demonstrates that certain economic, political and social factors affect democratization and that without the existence of the proper conditions, democratization isn't possible, even when externally imposed.

There has been a substantial amount of work on the relationship between economic development and political democracy (Bollen 1983; Bollen & Jackman 1985; Burkhart & Lewis-Beck 1994; Lipset 1980) that shows that there is a link between wealth and stability in a democratic system. Simply put, wealthy countries tend to be stable democracies and poor countries tend not to be democracies at all, with plenty of unstable democracies in the middle. Most of Latin America falls into the middle development category and these states have shown that middle states that undergo democratic transition also suffer from a decline in formal democracy (Bowman 1996). Indeed, scholars have labeled Costa Rica as the only democracy in Latin America. (Bowman at 304). So why then, despite significant external pressures to democratize, have Latin American nations effectively rejected the process of democratization?

Scholars have suggested that beyond economic factors, the presence of a strong military affects the ability of states to democratize. Id. When there is insufficient wealth, the military can utilize public discontent to seize control of democratic institutions, destroying formal democracy. This has proven particularly ironic in Latin America, since many of the militaries were bolstered and strengthened through US support in the effort to support military overthrow of prior regimes. When there is a weak military presence, or none at all (Cost Rica), then there exists no credible alternative to the institutional mechanisms already in place, and the people opt to effect change through the democratic system.

So perhaps the cost of externally imposing democracy is leaving a permanent and constant military presence in the country to substitute for a domestic military. This was the approach taken in both Japan and Germany following World War II and met with much better results that the efforts of imposition in Latin America. However, this is a costly alternative and certainly raises moral problems. It is not pragmatic to assume that the US might leave a permanent military presence in even a small number of states for the purpose of enforcing and socializing democratic institutions and norms. Moreover, both Germany and Japan were defeated as aggressors in world war, which is very different than being non-democracies in a non-war setting. If the US were to launch an aggressive "democratization" military campaign, the US would be the aggressor against nations, that had offered little or no provocation, for the purpose of imposing a new style of government that must be accompanied by occupation and forced socialization. This approach to world affairs seems both impractical and immoral given the lack of mandate. It should also be noted, that the failure of democracy in Latin America may have done more harm than good because many of the peoples now view their "democratic" governments as ineffectual, corrupt and unable to meet the needs of the people. These attitudes may be more difficult to overcome than if the people had sought out democratization on their own when the appropriate level of circumstances had been obtained.

I am not saying that installing democratic governance isn't desirable in some ways. I am suggesting that the process requires a strong internal motivation and without that motivation, the process might be doomed to failure without substantial investment of resources. Moreover, I do question the moral mandate for an aggressive democratization through military conquest approach.

Stuart--- Hotel Forever

I have been told, and truly believe, that there is nothing that cannot be explored through the telling of a story. So there I was, riding in a brand new Passat, speeding along the road in Bulgaria. I would say it was a street like any other, except it wasn't. Beyond the fact that traffic laws here involve driving at each other at full speed and swerving only at the last minute, is the fact that the town we were passing through was from a distinctly Soviet period in time...

This particular small town; had none of the Central European architecture that you see in Sofia or any of the Italian Rivera style buildings found on the Black Sea. No, this town was definitely built during Soviet control. The buildings are ominous, undecorated and completely dilapidated. Under Communism, everyone had a place to live, but those places to live were not very nice. Nobody had more than any other person, and that is because almost everyone had nothing at all. Then in 1989, Soviet politics fell into retreat.

Now what is left are these towns that stand as monuments as to how "one size fits all" works just about as well for governments as it does for hats and shirts. As I drove through the town, I noticed a particularly depressing looking building, and painted on the side of the building in English, was the phrase "Hotel Forever." Forever indeed. The people are people like any other, they laugh, they play, they have dreams and most of all they love their families. But, it is clear that the last sixteen years have not erased eighty years of material oppression and for those that lived under the system they would never be free, some part of them would always be living in the Hotel Forever.

Things are not all better now that the transition to a market economy has occurred. There are problems of what to do with the ever-increasing population of Roma (gypsies). There are problems with the older generations who cannot see a system working that is so different from what they knew for so many years. And most importantly, there are problems getting people to shift their mindset to please the consumer and that the hardest worker is the one who will succeed. This last problem is most important over the next coming generation, because even the most ambitious developer or progressive politician is limited by those that work under him/her.

So as I drive through this town I feel sad for what these people have seen, and I feel cautious about what these people must still endure. And yet, although they have their own concerns and can be quite jaded, they are also enthralled with the power of a system that rewards you for innovation and hard work. The purchase of a new car, the construction of a new house, these things are an aphrodisiac to those among us with ambition and drive. Seeing the first generation in over a century to enjoy the fruits of their labors is an exciting thing and it makes me wishful that perhaps some day our nation will gain as clear a vision of what we must do next.

Fitz--Wasting Our Time

While working today, a friend of mine IMed me to tell me that the Ban on Gay Marriage Amendment was shot down in the Senate. He and I both expressed our frustration and annoyance with our elected representatives. 49 Senators voted in favor of the amendment and we were in disbelief regarding how this could be the case...

This article does a good job of summarize what I hope many are starting to feel: CNN Article. No matter what your stance on gays, this is indeed the question we should be asking--Are there not more pressing issues and problems facing this country? Does what 5%-10% of the population do really constitute an attack on the institution of marriage?

Additionally, is this not obvious for the underhanded tactic that it is? Its a common tactic really--demonize some group or minority in order to distract from real problems. Hey, it worked for Hitler (Jews), worked for Mao (intellectuals), and Stalin (uh...everyone). Should democratic leaders really be employing such tactics?

And the timing--with congressional elections coming up, the ruling party in trouble on many fronts with no clear answers--best strategy--"well polls show that a majority of Americans are against gay marriage, so lets launch a culture war to put this at the forefront of our reelection campaigns."

Nevermind, as the article points out, the problems in the Middle East, the problems of energy, the real causes of the degredation of marriage, etc...

It is an underhanded tactic to appeal, again, to the baser emotions of people--their fears, intolerances, and ignorance.

I believe it is time to vote these people out of office. They waste our time and distract us from real problems. I don't just mean Republicans, vote them all out. The opposition party is so ineffectual, it offers no real alternative to the ruling party and has really served as no opposition whatsoever. We need new leadership, leaders with better vision.