RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Good News About Yesterday’s Duel

by Jim Wallis 05-22-2009

I’m in Germany at the biannual Kirchentag festival of faith of the German churches, so I missed the news and analysis of President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney’s speeches in Washington, D.C., yesterday.  I just listened to both, however, back-to-back.

In these speeches, we witnessed a rare moment of clarity, a moral clash in the interpretation of reality, and one of the starkest contrasts in competing visions that I have ever seen for the values, direction, and policies of our nation. In short, there was a choice offered to us yesterday for exactly what kind of country and people we want to be – and what America will mean for us and for the world.

First, President Obama offered a dramatically new direction for achieving national security, after the “misguided experiment” of the Bush years. In a very powerful symbol, Obama chose the National Archives as the venue for this major address, pointing to the historic documents that are kept here—The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights—noting that these documents are “the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world,” and clearly suggesting that they have been violated in the policies of the United States over the past several years, policies that included the systematic violation of legal rights and even the use of torture.

Then,  just minutes later, former Vice President Cheney rose to speak at the American Enterprise Institute to aggressively defend and forcefully argue for a confident continuation of those very policies; and to vigorously attack the “contrived indignation and phony moralizing” that have critiqued the policies of the Bush/Cheney years (which some suggest should be called the Cheney/Bush years). Even Cheney admitted the “great dividing line” that stands between these two visions of national security. Candy Crowley of CNN called the dueling speeches “a tale of two universes.” And they were.

The president began by saying that

 … my single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe. It’s the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

But, he went on to say that

 … I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. … I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset …

He spoke of the “so-called enhanced interrogation techniques” that

… undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. … In short, they did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts …

And, on closing the prison at Guantanamo:

Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. …  instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

Vice President Cheney, on the other hand, began and ended with 9-11 as the justification for everything that followed: “9-11 made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat …” He defended the “enhanced interrogation” by arguing,

The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed.  They were legal, essential, and the right thing to do. … to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

And Cheney’s view of values was that

… no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them. … For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings.

My father was a Midwestern evangelical Christian, and an Eisenhower Republican. His core values never changed, but his politics did as his party moved further and further to the right, and his children moved to embrace faith-inspired social justice. He was still alive for the election of 2004, and after a retired men’s breakfast sponsored by the Detroit church that he and my mother had started, somebody suggested that the group go hear Dick Cheney who was speaking that night in nearby Ann Arbor. That was a mistake. My dad coldly replied, “I wouldn’t go hear Dick Cheney if he was the last speaker on the planet. Dick Cheney is evil.” My father was known by everyone for his kindness and generosity, and nobody would have called him judgmental. But his judgments of people, in particular, were unusually good.

I will leave the judgment of Dick Cheney’s soul to God, who alone is in the position to render that judgment on all of us. But I will say the vision of America that Dick Cheney offers, and did again yesterday, is decidedly evil, and has helped to spread even more evil around the world. Dick Cheney represents the dark side of America, a view of the world dominated by fear and self-righteousness—always a deadly combination. It accepts no real reflection or self-examination, the evil in the world is always external, and the threat ever present. There is only certainty, and never humility. And, when the dark side goes unchecked, what it leads to is a state of permanent warfare, which will only be won by using any means necessary; and where the ends always justify the means. At the end of his breathtaking speech, the former vice president was so full of admiration and praise for those who used “enhanced interrogation” against America’s suspected enemies that you got the impression that he would happily preside over those brutal sessions himself.

But at their best, American values are different than that and, as the new president said yesterday, we did things during the last several years with a “framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass,” and that “too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”

A fundamental change is now being made in American policies, at which the rest of the world — and many Americans who had despaired over the course of their country — will breathe a deep sigh of great relief.  We are seeing the beginning of the hope that healing will come to some of the damage to the world and to America that has been done by the rampage over our most important values.

The good news about yesterday’s dueling moral visions of America is that the first was offered by a young new president who has a personal priority to change the image of America in the world — to the thundering applause of an audience at the National Archives. The second was offered by an aging figure of an old and imperial view of American leadership, rather domination, in the world, which he wants to defend by any means necessary – to an increasingly marginal right-wing tank with only tepid applause.

And the first is now the governing vision of American foreign policy, while the second is now a politically defeated ideology. Thanks be to God!

Jim Wallis is CEO of Sojourners.

Categories: Faith and Politics
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)

  • jkc1945
    Mr. Wallis, you seem so sure. . . . . but I wonder. . . . .
  • JohnH54
    Obama's speech was a mash-up of empty, leftist platitudes. Interrogation techniques as a recruiting tool? He offers NO proof.
  • Actually, that's close to the truth. One of the reasons al-Qaeda wanted Bush to remain president in 2004 and McCain to become president last year -- yes, both are true -- was because the presence of American troops in that part of the world actually made it easier for it to recruit. Don't forget the long-term strategy with 9/11 -- he wanted to draw us into a fight because he figured that he could mobilize a billion Muslims and outlast the West.
  • JohnH54
    So then your response to 9-11 would have been to do nothing?

    What do you think the ove-under is on another attack with the anemic BHO stratgy?
  • So then your response to 9-11 would have been to do nothing?

    Didn't say that. But we're talking about Iraq, which had nothing to do with it.

    What do you think the over-under is on another attack with the anemic BHO strategy?

    Less likely now, truth be told. Obama is working on the most effective way to stop terrorism -- change the conditions in those countries so to isolate terrorist groups (because even they need followers); the more we kill on the battlefield the more they're seen as martyrs. On the other hand, India has a lot of Muslims but no terrorists -- and why is that?
  • JohnH54
    No muslim terrorists in India? You are kidding, right? What planet do you live on?

    Could we at least agree that Islam is evil and therefore a problem?
  • No muslim terrorists in India? You are kidding, right? What planet do you live on?

    No, that's true. I live on Planet Earth, thank you.

    Could we at least agree that Islam is evil and therefore a problem?

    I don't buy that. Besides, if Islam didn't exist you'd simply find another target -- and I'm not going there with you.
  • JohnH54
    Then let's just end the discussion because you are clearly not worth the effort.
  • I suggest you leave this blog altogether, because we don't need prejudiced attitudes like the one you subscribe to.
  • "prejudiced attitudes"?

    Pat calling kettle, "Black."
  • Try again.

    You are obviously referring to my constant skewering of the political right. In fact, however, I have a quarter-century of direct experience with it (which, it turns out, remains valid) and have read much literature, plus I actually kept largely silent until 1992. John, on the other hand, likely knows few Muslims and certainly no "terrorists." If anything, your consistent attacks on me only confirm what I have learned over the years.
  • canucklehead
    in order to follow this conversation, please clarify whether it's Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan or Pat Nixon you're referring to.
  • watkins
    sounds like a few at least are straying from the code of conduct for this forum?

    "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)
  • That's why I suggested that the person leave -- he was getting personal and speaking inappropriately, which detracted from the actual discussion. It happens more often than you might believe.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I would like to share the most valuable lesson I learned in seminary. In one course my missions professor asked, in passing: "How much of what we do around here has anything to do with the love of Jesus?"

    I have always found that a helpful check on the work I do with Christians, on my life, and on my words.

    I share them, requesting your consideration of the question as you reflect on this dialogue and your words.
  • neuro_nurse
    "How much of what we do around here has anything to do with the love of Jesus?"

    What, then, is to be gained by declaring Islam to be evil, especially without providing even a nominal supporting argument?

    How does that serve Christ, other Christians, or Muslims?

    Where is the fruit?

    Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, wrote an excellent book on interreligious dialog called “Truth and Tolerance.”

    Despite the fact that it was written by the man who is now the pope, its contents are generally not specific to Catholics. Cardinal Ratzinger addresses all Christians.

    Despite the fact that the title contains that ‘liberal’ term, ‘tolerance’ (shudder!), there is nothing liberal about Ratzinger’s thesis.

    Cardinal Ratzinger encourages interreligious dialogue, but insists that Christians stand firmly on the Truths of our faith. He offers no area in which Christians can compromise our beliefs.

    We should not fear or be hesitant to discuss beliefs and attempt to find common ground between the Christian faith and members of non-Christian religions.

    We cannot, however, expect to participate in a dialogue with people whose beliefs we do not respect, and certainly not with people whose religion we dismiss as ‘evil.’

    We stand to lose nothing by participating in interreligious dialogue, and have much to lose if we don’t.
  • JohnH54
    Let's recap. I did say I thought Islam was evil. Some disagreed with me as is their right and I responded that I thought they were wrong. I was then told I was bigoted and ignorant and implied that I could not have studied the issue. So much for dialogue.

    Thanks for the advice. I would prefer to discuss the issue rather than the usual resort to ad hominem which so often happens in discussions with people on the left.
  • neuro_nurse
    “I did say I thought Islam was evil.”

    No, you said “Islam is evil,” not, “I think Islam is evil.”

    “Some disagreed with me as is their right and I responded that I thought they were wrong.”

    Again, you did not say, “I think they are wrong,” you said, “they are wrong,” and “The Vatican is wrong, and if you agree with them, you are too.”

    Those are declarative statements, not statements of belief or opinion.

    I did not tell you that you were wrong, even when you had the audacity to declare to a Catholic that the Vatican is wrong. (How did you expect me to respond? ‘Oh gee, I guess you’re right?’)

    You’re free to express an opinion, but why would anyone agree when you haven’t made the least amount of effort to explain why you, or why anyone else should believe that Islam is evil?

    “I was then told I was bigoted and ignorant and implied that I could not have studied the issue.”

    Who told you that you are bigoted?

    As far as ignorance of Islam, I will say this much; I lived in Iran in 1978. I hitch hiked through North Africa and spent a year volunteering in Ethiopia, which is roughly 45% Muslim. I’ve read the Koran. My beliefs and opinions about Islam are not simply a parroting of Catholic teaching on the subject. In fact, I wasn’t aware of the Church’s position on Islam until much later and was delighted to find that the Church teaches what I already knew about Islam.

    “So much for dialogue.”

    If you want to have a dialogue, please be prepared to do your homework and defend what you say, rather than expect other people to agree with you, then pretend to be the wounded party when someone disagrees with you.

    “I would prefer to discuss the issue rather than the usual resort to ad hominem which so often happens in discussions with people on the left.”

    BlueDeacon may be rather abrasive in his responses, but despite xfree9’s protestations, I find nothing in the way BlueDeacon has responded to you that I can characterize as an ad hominem attack. In fact, you dismissed him as “clearly not worth the effort.”

    I also do not find in anything in the way anyone on this blog has responded to you that is characteristic of “people on the left” that in not equally true about ‘people on the right.’
  • lumens
    Test.
  • neuro_nurse
    Incidentally, what I have written in not an ad hominem attack, it is a criticism of what you have written on this thread.

    I have no reason to suspect that in person, you are not a decent person and a devout Christian.

    To suggest otherwise would be an example of an ad hominem attack.

    Peace.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Thank you for responding and considering my request.
  • duhsciple
    Manichaeism is an ancient Christian heresy. Look it up.
  • I'm well aware of it.
  • Wonder
    I'm not sure I get your point.
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