The politics of Cain

I heard a young "conservative" on the radio today, talking about how she chose to identify with that faction.

She said the key to her political thinking was learning about people who drove new cars to the welfare-office to collect government aid: the favorite Reagan anecdote. She was honest enough to admit she hadn't personally seen that; but hearing that it happened convinced her to be a "conservative."

Many anecdotes have a basis in truth, of course. I imagine this is one of them. People who've researched Reagan's anecdote have found some truth in it, as well as some untruth and some exaggeration for political effect. But we'd probably all agree that there are people who game the welfare or Social Security or food-stamp or Medicare or tax systems. An honest view of human nature makes it a given that manipulators...people of high socio-economic status as well as low...take advantage of those and other systems in every way they can devise.

But the thought that came into my mind was that the "conservatism" promoted by Reagan's anecdote is an expression of the politics of Cain: "I am not my brother's keeper !"

Followers of Cain argue that any system which is gamed by the unscrupulous is bad, and should be scrapped: that our highest moral duty is to not let manipulators take advantage of us. It seems a strange argument from those who continually manipulate our political system and our economic system to their own personal ends.

But for those of us who aren't deceived to the political-social thinking of Cain, the question is what we do with the truth in Reagan's anecdote ? What is our attitude toward undeserving people who take advantage of our mercy ?

I don't often quote the hackneyed bumper-sticker, but it definitely applies here: what would Jesus do ?

What was Jesus' attitude and action toward undeserving people ?   That should be Christians' attitude and actions. Amen.

The Spiritual Question Today

"...there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good."
(Romans 13:1b-4a)

We have a political faction in our country who teach that government doing good for people is "socialism." They also teach that it's good to resist and rebel against authority...as they do.

They claim to be the "Christian" faction in American politics.

We know what Jesus' judgement is on hypocrites and liars. What is His judgement on those who believe, and follow, hypocrites and liars ?

Christian Political Correctness

It's very popular to be against "political correctness" these days.

Indeed, being "anti-p.c." is probably the favorite politically correct attitude in our society.

One reason it's so popular is that there's no cost in being "anti-p.c." "Political correctness" is something those other awful people do...not us.

No need to bring Jesus into the matter, questioning what speck or what log is in whose eye.

Doesn't apply. P.C. is something other people do. There's no "politically correct" log in the eye of patriotic American Republican conservatives.

If there were, wouldn't Jesus say to them what he said in scripture: "You hypocrites" ?

Republican Irony

Republicans have always prided themselves on being the most freedom-loving, most patriotic, and most Christian of America's political animals.

Prided themselves falsely, of course. Self-pride is always false.

What's interesting is that at this point the two leading Republican Presidential wannabes, Cruz and Trump, are both clearly authoritarian personalities. It seems to have escaped the notice of their followers, angry in their belief that their "rights" are being taken from them, that authoritarian rulers care not at all for individuals' "rights."

Both Republican contenders offer some vision of how they (and they alone: the fact on which they ground their authoritarian appeal) will "make America great again." People who buy into their vision have to buy into their claim that America is not currently a great power. It's a view contrary to geopolitical reality.

Both Republican contenders offer a vision of America militarily and economically dominant in every sphere, and ready to use its strength to enforce compliance: an authoritarian America...which can only be properly directed by an authoritarian President. Their definition of "greatness" comes close to my definition of "bullying." As a "patriotic" vision for America, it seems a recipe for destroying all that's good about America: and ultimately, America itself.

I have an even harder time crediting the two wannabe's claims to be Christians...especially Cruz', which are transparently, unctuously, aimed at his "Evangelical base." That thing Jesus said about recognizing people by their fruits gets in the way for me. No one who furthers their power by fear and hatred is producing good fruit. No one who directs fear and hatred toward the poor, toward aliens, toward caring for the sick, is a follower of Jesus.

It's ironic that (self-professed) freedom-loving, patriotic, Christian Republicans think America will be "great" again when led by an authoritarian hypocrite professing to love Jesus, while he leads America in ways of fear, hatred, and violence.

Those are the ways God hates. Those are the ways on which God promises destruction.

Political allegiances always require some "suspension of disbelief"...some degree of willingness to believe what's manifestly not true. But human foolishness and self-deception are insufficient to explain why Christians would embrace the destructive evils Republicans promote. Profound spiritual blindness is the only explanation that seems sufficient.

May God deal with hypocrites, haters, the violent, the willfully foolish and the spiritually blind, as He proposes.

May God forgive the American Christians ! Amen.

To a state senator: Legislative Philosophy

Dear Senator L-------:

Thanks for your reply to my e-mail. With the legislature in recess, I hope you'll have time to consider some general philosophizing on the practice of government.

I very much appreciate that you're open to hearing views different than your own. Many in your faction prefer echo-chamber politics, and no feedback that challenges their ideology.

It's a bad attitude in those whose job is to represent a diversity of constituents. It also betokens an underlying arrogance: that "only those who agree with me are worth hearing."

None of us experience reality as a chorus of voices totally agreeing with us. Those who want it so, want to live in a false "reality" of their own creation. That too is a bad attitude in people whose job is to deal with real-world problems, such as Kansas' budget.

It's also a "law" of history that people in power who choose to hear only affirmation of their own ideas, produce disaster. That truth applies to current American political factions as much as it did to England's Charles I, or Josef Stalin.

And bottom line, nobody can learn anything in an echo-chamber. There's the great danger to false realities. By definition, every ideology claims its worldview, and its worldview alone, explains all things, and justifies all things. Ideology loses its grip on its followers if they learn otherwise.

So, Senator, I'm very glad you're willing to hear ideas that challenge your ideology. An important one follows.

Kansas state government, of which you're part, has long set itself to oppose anything "Washington" does. It's not surprising, as that's the unquestioned ideology of the so-called "conservative" faction currently in power in Kansas.

But this doctrine of thumbing your nose (or Kansans' nose, since you're charged with representing Kansas' citizens) at the federal government has precedence in American history, as I'm sure you know. To give that political theory its historical name, Kansas' government embraces "nullification," claiming it's a sound and beneficial political principle.

I'm sure you're aware "nullification" was a theory invented by Southern "anti-Washington" politicians of the Nineteenth Century, to justify disobeying federal laws they didn't like. You're probably also aware their hatred of federal "over-reach" eventually gave rise to secession, and a war to destroy the United States. More to the point, you're surely aware that the theory of nullification, far from "sound and beneficial," brought disastrous consequences on its followers.

It's quite amazing that your faction would embrace this principle, against all evidence.

Commonsense wisdom says it's a bad principle: "in unity there is strength."

Scripture's spiritual truth on the matter calls that anti-authoritarian attitude "rebellion:" and scripture says it originates in the essential character of Satan.

It's a principle contrary to one explicit purpose of the Constitution: "...to form a more perfect Union."

And it's a principle which American history has demonstrated is ultimately and massively destructive.

There are additional real-world problems with your faction's ideology. I'll save those for another time.

For right now, Senator, I'm very curious.

It's common today to demonize the "other side:" that everything "they" think and do is explained by the fact that "they" are simply evil people. (This mindset goes hand-in-hand with the mindset that any one not in full agreement with "us" is an enemy...proving they're evil, since "we" arrogantly believe "we" embody everything that is right and good.)

I don't buy that thinking. I hope you don't either, Senator, because it's not true.

Few people embrace evil because it's evil. That's pathology. Most people follow an ideology because they're convinced it somehow does good. Even dedicated followers of Marxism and Nazism believed those ideologies would achieve good results.

So I have to imagine your faction embraces its ideology from a similar sincere belief it will somehow do good. And I'm very curious what good: against the evidence of scripture, and commonsense, and the Constitution, and history: your faction believes will come from striking rebellious and divisive poses ?

Respectfully, S---- H----

Presidential Election Results

" 'For I have set My face against this city for harm and not for good,' declares the Lord." (Jeremiah 21:10a)

"Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am going to set My face against you for woe, even to cut off all Judah...Behold, I am watching over them for harm and not for good...' " (Jeremiah 44:11, 27a)

" 'I will set My eyes against them for evil and not for good.' " (Amos 9:4b)


God's great promise to men is forgiveness, His unlimited welcome and blessing to all who will accept it, in Jesus Christ.

But not all accept God's offer. Many who crowd around Him for His protection, show by their deeds that their hearts are far from Him.

God is not fooled. His promise to the false-hearted is that He will watch over them for destruction.

It's early to call the presidential election, before the parties have named their choices. But we already know this...

Whatever the parties do to elect their candidates, and despite Americans' prideful boast they choose their own leader...God will pick America's next leader. He will give us exactly the president HE determines will be His right minister to America. If He is pleased to bless America, He will give us "...a minister of God to you for good" (Romans 13:4): and He will give us "...a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath..." (ibid) if His face is set against America for harm and not for good.

The most important thing the election will show us is what God's heart is toward America.