Article VI Blog

"Religion, Politics, the Presidency: Commentary by a Mormon, an Evangelical, and an Orthodox Christian"

United States Constitution — Article VI:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

What's On Twitter

  • Tweets: New Pope

  • Tweets: Evangelical Politics

  • The New Fronts On The Culture War

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:24 am, May 18th 2013     &mdash      1 Comment »

    Make no mistake – the Scandalrama that has erupted in DC represents new fronts in the Culture War.  Two fronts to be exact.

    Corporate Culture

    The breadth and scope pf the scandals indicate that this is not a few individuals going rogue.  Think of the number of agencies that we have heard about in the last two weeks that have been involved in corrupt, or at least unethical practices.  IRS leads the pack, but the DOJ, State, EPA, HHS and many others have come up with one problem or another.  THAT is a cultural problem within the government.

    There is an important lesson that can be learned from this – Culture matters more than issues.  This is why litmus tests don’t work.  You see, I have no doubt that Obama knew little of all this garbage going in.  That does not make him any  less culpable, I just think it accentuates his bad management and makes his sins ones of omission, not commission.  I think it is pretty easy to form an image of the president has having hired all his cronies, let them go, and then going off to play golf, assuming the dimbulbs he hired had things well in hand.  I have no doubt everyone he hired was a card-carrying, ticket-punching liberal activist that hit the issue list just right.  But they clearly did not know beans about how to run a government.  (Politics and a campaign they knew how to do in spades, but not governance.)

    Consider the latest response to come out of the White House:

    Struggling to find his footing after one of the most turbulent weeks in office, President Obama’s aides have ordered the White House staff to spend no more than 10 percent of their time on controversies, Mark Landler and Michael D. Shear report. Democratic strategists are now working on a plan to intensify the administration’s focus on revamping immigration laws, reaching a budget deal and implementing the new health care legislation.

    That is not leadership, that is accounting (10% of their time indeed!) and optics.  That approach is denial of the problem, not an effort to change the culture within the executive branch of the government.

    As those of us of faith approach the culture war it is important that we see this clearly.  The culture war is not primarily about abortion and same sex marriage, it’s about a culture where such things do not rise to the level of being issues, just as the corrupt practices of the Obama administration should never have been issues to begin with.  That means we of faith need to learn how to lead the nation, not just complain about its wrong turns.  Which leads me to the second front…

    Character Culture

    One of the questions that has been niggling in the back of my mind for the last week has been, “Where are the careerists?”  The government is full of employees for whom this is a career, not a political appointment.  Think of those that testified about Benghazi, they were pros, not appointees.  Where are such people in the IRS?

    Now, I am guessing based on yesterday’s testimony, that there were some structural hide-and-seek going on.  Miller yesterday tried to hide behind a claim that these applications were grouped for “efficiency.”  I have little doubt that was the internal claim of the agency.  I would suspect that the unit that got these grouped claims was staffed almost entirely by appointees, not career types, and thus they were able to ply their intimidation trade without much scrutiny or counter force.  But even such structural steps would be extraordinary and should have drawn some outcry from the career types.

    Why did that not happen?  Well, for one, I have little doubt that the federal employee unions were pretty active.  But more importantly, I think it is because those career types did not have sufficiently developed character to see this for the problem that it was and then to stand and take the risks involved in crying out.  I think a few may yet appear now that they can count on Congressional cover, but someone should have come forward a long time ago as far as I am concerned.  (Of course what we do not yet know is whether someone DID go forward to, say, the White House where their complaints were greeted with complacency.  Yet another sin of omission.)

    This is why the “religious test” that was so clearly and unambiguously applied to these applications is so stunningly awful.  You see, if religion can be relegated into some box that reads “only for Sunday morning worship” then people of the character that would have come forward won’t exist at all, anywhere.  Such ethics and courage do not grow in the wild; they must be cultivated.  Religion is one of the few forces in our nation that does such cultivation – at least it should.

    The primary front on the culture war is the one where we continue to cultivate and fight for our right to do such cultivation.  If we do that then abortion and same sex marriage will be forgone conclusions, not issues at all.  If we do that then when the inevitable corrupt influences creep into government, people will be in place that will do what is necessary to keep that corruption from becoming endemic.

    Share

    Posted in character, Culture Wars, Governance, Social/Religious Trends, Uncategorized, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Wonder and Amazement Watching the Scandalrama

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 09:00 am, May 16th 2013     &mdash      1 Comment »

    So, yesterday we briefly mentioned how weak Obama is looking on the international stage.  You know,

    I Wonder…

    …if Obama and Holder realize just how weak their excuse of, “It’s a big organization, we cannot know all of what goes on,” really makes them look – and by extension the nation?  I wonder if they are capable of doing the geopolitical calculus that would lead one to conclude that such apparent weakness is why countries like China are feeling expansionist?  I wonder if they understand that China may suspect the US no longer has Japan’s back when it comes to defending Okinawa?

    These people are supposed to be in control of their own organizations, after all.  If they are not, if the organizations they run are so out of their control that scandal after scandal after scandal can erupt without their ever knowing what is going on, then they are weak indeed.

    Either Obama and Holder appear not smart enough to know that their excuses weaken the nation, or they really are not in control of the organizations.  Either way they actually weaken the nation – hugely.  Either way…

    …I Am Amazed…

    …at how unsophisticated they apparently are.  It’s not just that they cannot see the effects their excuse making is having on the international stage.  It’s that the scandals themselves are so brutish as to make Watergate look like the work of genius’.

    It takes an amazing combination of hubris and self-absorption to think that what amounts to political thuggery would go undetected.  Hubris that they are somehow above such concerns, and self-absorption in their total inability to entertain things outside their proscribed viewpoint, like the fact that a diplomatic post might be under actual attack.  Did they really think they had the press in such thrall that they would not object to the wholesale interference with the collection and dissemination of news?  (Actually that is not amazing, that is shocking – the press lives on a high horse – their apparent Obama thrall is not about Obama, it’s about the high horse of his color.  You would think even the proud, self-absorbed Obama was smart enough to know that double crossing that bunch would backfire.)  Did they really think Americans would stand by idly while they squelched our most basic rights using the oppressive powers of the IRS?

    Where are the double-blinds, the cut-outs, the misdirection, and the other craft that even organized crime, not the most educated individuals in the world, seems to be smart enough to have in place when they engage in this sort of brute force thuggery?  I am amazed at how unsmart this gang really seems to be.

    But most amazing is the timing, one magic year keeps creeping up as the genesis of all this scandal – 2010.  Well, except for Benghazi which was about 2012.  Yep, Obama got his electoral head handed to him in 2010 (largely by Tea Party types) so he turned thug to survive in 2012.  All this scandal was not in service to an ideology, or some other imagined greater good.  It is purely an attempt to hold onto office.  Turns out Mr. “Satisfied to be a one term president” was not so satisfied after all.  The press is turning on him faster than an Indianapolis race car turns left.  I wonder if the leftie ideologues will be far behind?

    Share

    Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Governance | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Weak Presidents…

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 06:55 am, May 15th 2013     &mdash      1 Comment »

    … or YES, WE ARE THE WORLD’S POLICEMAN

    The weakness of this administration greatly precedes the breaking scandals of the last  couple of weeks.  But along with those scandals, other related issues are coming home to roost.

    Our diplomats are being arrested and accused of spying and China make s a play for Okinawa.  This stuff is not a response to terrorism – no mere religious expression this.  These are not a bunch of [insert your derisive and dismissive description of jihadis here] killing a few people with bombs and airplanes. This is the game of nations.  This is trying to change the map of the world.

    And you can bet your bottom dollar that this aggressiveness on the part of our global competitors is directly related to the this administration’s ever weakening response to terrorism and and the trouble that Obama finds himself in domestically.

    This kind of stuff is why Nixon resigned.  Obama better clean house and he better do so quickly or this kind of stuff will only increase.  The world cannot afford it.

    Share

    Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Governance | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    False Accusations

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:31 am, February 21st 2013     &mdash      1 Comment »

    So yesterday I ran across a rumor that Pope Benedict was resigning because he was about to be busted over child sex stuff.  In one sense that is not the least bit surprising, virtually everything conceivable qualifies as an internet rumor these days, and about 10% of the population believes that Elvis is alive.  (That’s an old stat I am quoting that many no longer hold true, he’d be such an old man now that I would hope some of the hold outs would be giving up.)  When I first encountered the rumor I intended to write about the lack of respect for religious institutions reflected in such false accusation.

    But then yesterday Obama’s posturing on the sequester became the big news of the day.  It is an old and tired routine at this point – “Congress need to fix the problem and they are not.”  Yet another false accusation – that this is Congress’s sole responsibility.  Sadly; however, this is more than blame shifting, this is political technique.

    It is a technique I have seen many a protestant pastor use to deflect leaders in their church that have a pet peeve that is really not important enough to demand the attention and resources of the church proper.  They tell the leader to “go for it” knowing that they hold enough power to keep the leader from getting very far.  In the meantime, the pastor concentrates on what they perceive to be the most important agenda items.  In this case, Obama does not want to be burdened by things like a budget, nor is he concerned about the military.  Nope he has to be concerned about overturning the will of the people, expressed overtly in a vote, on gay marriage in California.

    If what Obama is doing can be called leadership, it is subversive at best,  Think about it.  It is a means to passing an unstated agenda that is at least controversial, if not unpopular, while at the same time accumulating power and weakening the other power centers in the government.  After all, at its heart this technique seeks to avoid the nuisance of having to work with Congress.  Or when you do it has them backed so far in the corner that they concede on the Obama agenda in the hopes of getting something, anything, on the stuff that matters.

    This technique has it’s limits however.  It only works when the chief executive is popular and more or less untouchable.  Unfortunately in this situation, I do not know how to bring those limitations into play.  That I hesitate to say why is testament to how difficult the situation is.  Obama is untouchable due to his race.  Any action we take to undermine his perceived popularity will simply be reflected onto us as racism.  I have no doubt that there is a significant number of people that will accuse me of racism simply on the basis of having written this entirely analytical paragraph.

    There are only two ways out of this conundrum that I can see.  One would be a to find and tilt up a figure with higher levels of popularity than Obama.  (I think this is the game that Marco Rubio is currently trying to play.  Much as I respect Rubio, if I am right his actions trouble me deeply.  This would be a huge mistake.  It one, feeds the errant value structure that got us into this mess and two, the such would serve to further unbalance the constitution.

    The other alternative  to hang on.  Such subversive power accumulation is always a house of cards.  Due to its reliance on lies, deception and subversion it always eventually falls apart.  I think most of us are morose because we thought the 2012 election would be its undoing.  We worry because unlike the last time this sort of thing happened (FDR’s re-election in middle of a depression that he only worsened) we fear the cards may not fall in a way that will allow us to readily rebuild.

    Frankly, I don’t know what’s going to happen.  But I do know two things.

    We cannot allow the false accusations to destroy our confidence.  In other words we must cling to the truth about our ideas and ourselves.  The second thing I know flows directly from this.

    We cannot allow our personal values to shift.  When it falls, and it will fall, if we have not preserved our values, rebuilding will be impossible.  Germany is now essentially a secular state because the church largely went along for the ride with the Nazis.  When that catastrophe ended, there was nothing to rebuild.  Am I promoting a form of political martyrdom?  That could happen, but I don’t think it will.

    You see, I think that if we just stand tall and true and committed, the fact that what we have is better will be come apparent.  Ronald Reagan borrowed from religion and called us a city on a hill.  That’s not a weapon – it’s just a light.  If shine brightly, people will flock to us.

    Share

    Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Governance, Political Strategy, The Way Forward | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Obama And The Three Bears – Minus Baby Bear…

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 06:15 am, October 29th 2012     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    The president never seems to get it “just right.”

    Benghazi seems to be eating the presidency alive.  Read though this Powerline post and follow all the links, or peruse Instapundit for all the latest.  This is inescapable for Obama.  He can talk all he wants about finding out who is responsible, etc., but by his own admission he is ultimately responsible.  I personally think he made the important decisions personally, but we will for sure not get the answer to that question until after the election.  But even if he did not, he built an administration so full of ineptitude that we stood by and watched Americans die in an attack on our nation – when we could have prevented or minimized the deaths.

    I heard a little buzz amongst the liberals at church Sunday about the wonderful pacifistic impulses.  It would take a very long time to theologically unpack pacifism and faith.  I am still chuckling over Whoopi Goldberg’s weird fail on The View a couple of weeks ago to paint Mormonism as pacifist.  I find it hard to believe that Goldberg is that ill-informed, rather I think she was making a political strike, trying to make Romney look bad because of his draft deferment related to his mission.  They say there are no atheists in a foxhole.  I have also thought there were no pacifists once the shelling began – but it appears there may be.  All I can say is it takes a cold disregard for human life to allow people to die rather than shoot back – Christ’s example not withstanding, He was after all coming back, something not available to the rest of us.

    Nor do I think Obama is going to get the so-called “Frankenstorm” just right.  The Gulf oil spill has already proven the man cannot get his head around a natural disaster.  Unlike Benghazi, where he did waaay too little.  Look for O to overreact to the storm.  He is already loosening up federal dollars (That is to say driving the nation deeper into debt) even before the damage is assessed.

    Regardless of how this storm plays out eventually, I look for it to turn the election litigious.  Chris Cilizza is trying to make it look like the storm will freeze the campaign in place.  That I doubt.  The eastern seaboard is not really in play anymore, Romney seems to have sewn it up.  The real fight is in the Midwest which looks to only be nominally affected by the storm.  Time will tell, these things never work out like we think.  However, I do expect many people claiming they could not get to the polls because of of effect X from the storm, not to mention ballot boxes going missing in transport and other sorts of shenanigans – hence the litigation I foresee.  Hold tight.

    Meanwhile the left continues to try and make mountains out of molehills with regards to Mormonism.  I found this WaPo story about the absence of Mormon action in the current Maryland same-sex marriage battle almost humorous.  It is as if they have no clue that Mormonism is a pretty regionalized faith, and there just are not enough Mormons in Maryland to make a difference in that battle.  Despite allegations to the contrary, it has nothing to do with the Romney campaign – it is pure demographics.

    And while we’re laughing, Salon, yes Salon, is trying to define Mormon belief.  Come on, you know that is funny.

    Share

    Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Governance, News Media Bias | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Like A Phoenix From The Ashes

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:50 am, October 28th 2012     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    In 2008, Evangelicals, particularly from western Iowa, pretty much cost Mitt Romney the Republican nomination for the presidency.  And yet, yesterday the Editorial Board of the Des Moines Register, the biggest journalistic voice in that state,  endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 general election now less than 10 days away.  This marks the first time in 40 years that the paper has backed a Republican.

    Newspaper endorsements do not matter like they used to, but they do matter, and this one is huge.  The signs continue to mount that Mitt Romney has captured, fully, the Evangelical vote.  The Catholic Bishops are coming dangerously close to outright endorsing him, so the Catholic vote is seemingly his as well.  That is quite possibly an unbeatable combination.  Once again we see evidence that Barack Obama thinks the world thinks like he does.  I don’t think he realized that for many of us, faith matters deeply and predominantly.

    CNN is recycling an old story, by their own admission, about Romney’s “faith journey.”  There is a sort of “at a distance” about the story that simply rings hollow to the believer of any stripe.  Faith is not a demographic, and identity, nor a mere affiliation.  It is something much deeper, something that we seek to allow to change us fundamentally – to make us better and to allow us to rise above our base desires.  But then the press has not “gotten” deep, committed faith for quite some time.

    I am not sure Obama understood this either as he began his assault on religious conscience and freedom.  I have to believe he thought most people of faith would just shrug their shoulders, as he obviously did when listing to the rants and “God Damn America’s” of Jeremiah Wright, because in his mind faith was just a box we tick off on Sunday.

    It may be without historical precedent that an incumbent candidate for the presidency has so profoundly misunderstood the American people.  We will probably never know whether he was intentionally not listening or simply lacked the mental capacity to hear.  And the possibility remains, though it is shrinking, that he may yet prevail.  But it is now clear that were that unlikely event to occur, that like the first time, it would not be because he represents the will of the American people.  It would be because he capitalized on an extraneous set of circumstances that made the election about something other than what really matters most to most Americans.

    But that is not the “big picture” I am getting.  I am getting a picture of Mitt Romney, rising from the Iowa that rejected him some four years ago, becoming the next President of the United States and unleashing the natural forces that have made this nation uniquely great in the history of nations.

    Share

    Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Electability, Governance, Political Strategy | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    « Previous« A Double Standard for Mormonism?  |  Next Page »Obama And The Three Bears – Minus Baby Bear… »