RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Brian McLaren: My Questions for the Democratic Candidates

by Administrator 05-14-2007

As Jim Wallis announced last week, we’re pleased to be hosting a forum of the leading Democratic presidential candidates at our Pentecost 2007 conference (and hoping to do a Republican candidates forum later this year). We’ve invited several of our bloggers to discuss their questions for the candidates, but are also asking our readers to submit their questions, and will let YOU vote on the ones we should use!
+ Click here to submit your questions

I’m writing from the Republic of South Africa, where I’ve been speaking in conferences and other gatherings with church leaders from across many denominations. With the memories of apartheid still alive here, with a poverty rate of about 40 percent, with crime rates moving higher and higher – in part due to desperate immigrants from Zimbabwe – and with the continuing work of creating a successful multicultural democracy ongoing, several questions come to my mind for the three candidates. Here is how I would formulate them sitting in a home in downtown Johannesburg:

1. For Senator Clinton: If you are elected and serve two terms, it would mean that two families would share the presidency of the United States for 28 years. It’s hard not to conclude that we are living in something more like an oligarchy or plutocracy than a democracy. Would you reflect on this problem so we can see how deeply you have thought about it, and would you propose what can be done about it?

2. For Senator Obama: I’ve heard critics express fear that you aren’t tough enough or militaristic enough to be president in a world of terrorism and nuclear weapons. I would imagine that would prompt you to want to prove you are indeed capable of being tough and militaristic. But many of us are hoping for someone who will present another vision for the role of America in the world – something beyond the world’s dominant military force, the world’s police, or the world’s imperial center. Not that America would be weak, but that we would be strong in new and different ways. Can you comment on your vision for the role of America in the world, and what you would do to pursue that role?

3. For John Edwards: When the subject of terrorism comes up, many Americans seem to think that terrorism can be stopped by guns and bombs. But others believe that wherever there is a large gap between rich and poor countries, terrorism (like high crime rates) will be likely, perhaps inevitable. If that is the case, creating a more equitable global economy becomes one of the most essential dimensions of reducing terrorism. Do you agree, and if so, what can America do to increase its security by helping poor nations improve their economic systems?

There are two additional questions I would want to ask all the candidates:

1. America seems to be caught in a cycle of fear. Politicians use fear to garner support and inhibit criticism. News media profit when people are afraid and watch TV news more often, raising ratings and advertising income. The arms industry profits when fears run high. Political parties compete for fear dominance over other parties. Cycles of fear are hard to break. How will your campaign and your presidency address this rise in the fear quotient?

2. The United States is not leading the world in addressing our unsustainable economy. We are the world’s prime example of an unsustainable consumer society, and if our lifestyles were generalized to the whole human population, we would need many planet earths to sustain us. Should we be a leader in environmental stewardship and sustainability? How would you lead in this regard? What would your priorities be in environmental renewal and sustainable living?


Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is an author, speaker, Red Letter Christian, and serves as board chair for Sojourners/Call to Renewal. His next book, due out in October, will be called Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope.

Categories: Elections
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • "Are they seriously hoping to host a forum for Republican candidates? Wouldn't that kind of be like the Heritage Foundation hosting a Democratic debate? I'd be very surprised if this happened." Maybe Sojo is responding to the criticisms that they simply represent the Christian left-wing.
  • Alicia
    Thanks, Donny.
    As a politically moderate Christian, I like to be exposed to thoughtful and respectful viewpoints from the Left, Middle, or Right. I don't see that labelling people as "Christian-hating" leftists, etc.

    Can I just add that when I was many years younger, my politics were much more to the Left?

    Then, as I grew older, I realized that people have to be taken as indiviuals, not labelled as "Bourgeois," or "Yuppies," or "Tree Huggers" or "Soccer Moms" or "Bushies" or whatever. Labels appear to me to be shorthand used for the purpose of dismissing people without addressing the substance of their arguments.

  • "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." (Ephesians 4:29) This message thread has been visited by a God's Politics Blog moderator for the purpose of removing inappropriate posts. Click here for a detailed explanation of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct: http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp which includes: Help us keep the conversation civil and respectful by reporting inappropriate posts to: community@staff.beliefnet.com 3
  • "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." (Ephesians 4:29) This message thread has been visited by a God's Politics Blog moderator for the purpose of removing inappropriate posts. Click here for a detailed explanation of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct: http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp which includes: Help us keep the conversation civil and respectful by reporting inappropriate posts to: community@staff.beliefnet.com 3
  • Alicia
    Brian's piece said: "The United States is not leading the world in addressing our unsustainable economy. We are the world's prime example of an unsustainable consumer society, and if our lifestyles were generalized to the whole human population, we would need many planet earths to sustain us." This "green question" is certainly one of the most important questions on my mind.
    However, I have to take issue with the traditional "religious left" canard about terrorism arising because of global poverty, and, for me, taking the terrorist threat seriously is one of the most important things I am looking for in our next POTUS.

    Those who think the Patriot Act was excessive should think about would happen here if there was another mass casualty terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

    In this regard, I recommend that everyone who is interested read Paul Berman's book, "Terror and Liberalism" which tells, from a left-wing perspective, why liberals should view Islamist radicalism as the greatest anti-democratic threat since Hitler and Stalin.

    I want to hear from the candidates how seriously they will take the two greatest threats to the future of humanity: global climate change, and Islamofacism. There are many other terrible threats to humanity, but I believe these have the potential to cause the greatest destruction.

  • jesse
    As Jim Wallis announced last week, we're pleased to be hosting a forum of the leading Democratic presidential candidates at our Pentecost 2007 conference (and hoping to do a Republican candidates forum later this year). --Are they seriously hoping to host a forum for Republican candidates? Wouldn't that kind of be like the Heritage Foundation hosting a Democratic debate? I'd be very surprised if this happened.
  • Donny
    . . . and, "Sojouners" holding a Republican candidtae debate?
    Why not have the Democrat National Commitee hold it in its DC office, or Hugo Chavez host it in Venezuala?

    No difference.

  • Donny
    Fear huh Brian? Like Christianity being outlawed for instance? Which is the distinct goal being achieved through hate crimes legistaion and secular humanist rule on our colleg/university grounds? Islam never being challenged by Liberals (that hold political power) for promoting the murders of non-Muslims? Schisms brought on by homosexuality being forced on the Church? Stuff like that raising the fears in Christians? Stuff that is really happening?
  • Deb
    I guess I'd like to see questions that by their posing do not lead the candidates to answer in a particular way...
  • "The maddening thing about the major candidates in BOTH parties is that they use ANY question as an opportunity to segue into talking points. I can't remember the last time I heard a direct, honest and relevant answer (Paul and Kucinich excepted)." Yep, and if you are wondering why, recall what happened to Joe Biden when he veered off talking points. When you make 2 million statements throughout the course of the campaign, you either stick to talking points, or someone calls you out.
  • justintime
    Revise question 3: 3. How do you propose to turn the American economic disaster around and bring back prosperity for all Americans? .
  • kevin s. wrote "Softball questions are labelled as such when they provide an easy opportunity to segue into talking points, as these questions do. Eric's question would give the candidates fits." The maddening thing about the major candidates in BOTH parties is that they use ANY question as an opportunity to segue into talking points. I can't remember the last time I heard a direct, honest and relevant answer (Paul and Kucinich excepted).
  • justintime
    Dear candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America, America's manufacturing base is being shipped offshore. America's high tech skilled jobs are being shipped offshore. America's raw materials are being shipped offshore. American consumers have few choices except products manufactured offshore with raw materials exported from America. America's massive trade and federal deficits are being acquired by foreign investors. Even America's infrastructure is being auctioned off to foreign investors. American investors are moving their investments offshore. American corporations are moving offshore to avoid taxes. America is rapidly losing the ability to create wealth. Looks like America's gonna end up as a colony again. 1. Can you see this picture? 2. How did we get ourselves into this untenable position? 3. How do you propose to turn the American economic disaster around and bring back prosperity? .
  • Eric
    Carl - yes that is a softball question. Any Democrat could easily answer "yes, I agree" to that question and then go on to talking points about how we need to help the world's poor more.
    Kevin - Yep, exactly. You have to give candidates yes or no questions otherwise they revert to talking points.

  • Ted Voth Jr
    Brian;
    We need someone tough, even in peacetime; we don't need a militarist, even in wartime. A militarist believes, contrary to Clausewitz, that the use of military power solves all problems and should be the means of preference, of first resort. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, none of whom served in Vietnam,are militarists; Colin Powell-- what a disappointment-- who had served? Probably not; he'd seen first-hand the limits of military power. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, were they tough? Yes. Were they all vets? Yes. Were they militarists? I'd say no. I believe Obama or Edwards or Richardson is tough; and Clinton? Heaven help our enemies! But none of em sound much like militarists, except Clinton, who wanted to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, last I heard

  • Softball questions are labelled as such when they provide an easy opportunity to segue into talking points, as these questions do. Eric's question would give the candidates fits.
  • Carl Copas
    McLaren: "If that is the case, creating a more equitable global economy becomes one of the most essential dimensions of reducing terrorism. Do you agree, and if so, what can America do to increase its security by helping poor nations improve their economic systems?" That's a softball question? Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party. Both are interesting men who offer genuine alternatives to the Republocrat mainstream. Neither man has a snowball's chance in Gehenna of getting elected.
  • Eric
    Don, good edition to the question.
  • Sarasotakid
    Don, I agree with you. The questions are serious and deep. To characterize them any other way simply ignores their content or amounts to baseless, bad faith criticism. I think that even Democrats would have a tough time giving adequate answers to these questions because at the end of the day, the Democrats are a right wing party in the broader spectrum of political ideologies.
  • Ngchen
    Ron Paul is an interesting candidate whom I respect. Even though I disagree with him over a couple of issues, at least I know he's honest. The classic problem with the gold standard (as pointed out by economists) is that well, (1) the supply of gold can't reflect the need for money supply changes quickly enough, resulting in periodic deflation, and (2) if you don't trust the government to use its printing press responsibly, how can you trust the government to not ditch the gold standard when inconvenient? So the problem it purports to solve isn't really solved.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008