Get E-Mail Updates

A Plea for a New Generation of Republican Leadership

I believe our nation works best with robust and civic dialogue and civil debate. For mature societal conversations to take place, at least two mature parties are required, and looking back over this summer, a second party is hard to find.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

The Obama administration needs a worthy loyal opposition, just as any group in power does, and the president himself often says so. But people who shout "Hitler, Nazi, socialist" don't constitute a worthy loyal opposition. Nor do the birthers (who don't stray too far from the fictional portrait of the afterbirthers described satirically here). Nor do the nostalgics, who seem to keep waking up in the 1980s year after year, quoting Ronald Reagan.

[Regarding the nostaligics, one can't help but recall God's words to Joshua (Joshua 1:2): "Moses my servant is dead." Many Republicans, it seems, are like Joshua and need to be told it's time to move on and discover their own voice, to think their own thoughts, to face today's challenges, to start leading constructively and not just repeating old slogans -- always revering the memory of their late-20th-century Moses, of course, but moving on to face today's problems just as their oft-sung hero sought to face those of his day.]

It seemed hard for the situation to deteriorate below gun-toting protestors at town hall meetings and Hitler-mustached posters, but we managed to hit a new even-lower low in recent days in the refusal of some parents and school districts to allow schoolchildren to listen to the presidential back-to-school address. Journalist-author Thomas Friedman had it right on "Meet the Press" Sunday, as did Education Secretary Ame Duncan on "Face the Nation": that reaction is just plain "stupid" and "silly." How many Republican leaders will stand with them?

Where does this bizarre behavior come from? True, there's a strain of extremism that runs through American politics on the left and right, and the Internet, late-night radio, and cable TV help keep it alive. But there's more to this, I think. I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president, mingled with xenophobia regarding brown-skinned immigrants, undergirded by fear of a future where there is no more racial majority status for white people. There is also, I suspect, a good amount of modernist fear of postmodernity mixed in. And where Christianity becomes a tribal religion rather than a reconciling faith -- the exclusive and combative religion of rural non-coastal folks, for example, or Southern folks, or socially conservative folks, or folks who hold a certain economic ideology -- there is probably some old-fashioned religious supremacy at play too: the "Our God is better than your god, so we should be in power" syndrome.

I keep wondering -- don't more Republicans themselves see the danger of an increasingly reactionary Republican party becoming in the 21st century what anti-civil-rights/pro-segregationists and McCarthyites were in the 20th, or what the pro-slavery/anti-abolition movements were in the 19th -- conserving an unjust status quo that deserved to be left behind? Out of love for their party and the good things it could potentially stand for in 2012 and beyond, don't they want to step forward now and be counted?

Even if all President Obama stands for were as dastardly as the shouters, birthers, and nostalgics insinuate, can't some perceptive Republicans see the need to do what President Obama did to win the election -- to inspire with some hope, rather than constantly pulling the levers of fear? Fear is indeed a powerful short-term motivator (and fundraiser), as is revenge, but it uses an inflating currency (and where do you go after flashing the Hitler/Nazi/fascist credit card?). An unregulated fear-based politics will eventually crash just as an unregulated bubble-based economy will, but like a crashing economy, it can cause a huge amount of damage on its way down.

That's why it's so depressing to see the paucity of Republican leadership providing a mature alternative to all this. That's why, with so much at stake -- from environmental policy to health-care reform to immigration reform to economic reform to foreign policy reform to campaign finance reform, even those of us who are firm supporters of President Obama wish his administration had a more robust conversation partner and a wiser, more constructive loyal opposition.

Thankfully, George Will has started speaking up with some fresh things to say, countering the long reign of neoconservative foreign policy in the Republican Party. Perhaps people like Will and Peggy Noonan represent the rise of a constructive conversation partner in the civic conversation. But they're writers; where are the politicians? If there are some perceptive Republicans out there who see from the inside what the rest of us see from the outside, I hope they'll start speaking up like George Will and Peggy Noonan -- and soon. Because if the best leaders the Republicans can offer the nation and the world in the next decade are the likes of ... well, I won't mention names ... then everyone will be worse off for it -- Republicans, Democrats, everyone. I believe, hope, and pray that Republicans can do better for their party, for America as a whole, and for the world.

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Dation

08-11-2011 @ 6:17pm

Church...

[

by: Huntergreen

09-10-2009 @ 6:37am

If you look back with an eye for detail, you will notice that the status quo of the south was Democratic. The Klan was primarily composed of that party. In fact we still have an old Byrd in the senate that was a Klansman. If you dare check out who repressed the blacks after the civil war. It was the Democrats. Sure, there have been derelicts on both sides of the aisle but history (unrevised) will show the Democratic party as no friend to the Black. By demonizing conservatism, democrats (especially so-called progressives) have instilled a resentment that has robbed the black community of moral and political objectivity.

by: BlueDeacon

09-10-2009 @ 12:46pm

Sorry, but you miss a lot of detail.

In 1948 there was a major revolt in the ranks of Southern Democrats, with
Strom Thurmond leading the charge against Harry Truman (who issued an
executive order integrating the Armed Forces), even running for president
against him on the "Dixiecratic" ticket; and in the 1960s the national
Democratic Party got serious about civil rights, further angering Southerners.
Seeing an opening, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater
announced his opposition to the civil-rights movement (albeit not for racist
reasons; nevertheless, that got the attention of many of those Southerners and
Thurmond would eventually switch his affiliation. Feeling some momentum two
years later, Richard Nixon and aide Pat Buchanan campaigned for GOP
congressional candidates in the South, where the party became a legitimate
entity for the first time since Reconstruction; Reagan's election completed
the turnaround. Bottom line, the Southern segregationists generally left the
Democratic Party for the Republican Party; those that stayed such as Robert
Byrd moderated their views. In fact, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm and a number of
others actually started their political careers as Democrats.

Furthermore, the "religious right" got started in 1978 when the Carter
Administration sicced the IRS on private Christian schools in the South that
he suspected were founded to evade court-ordered desegregation in public
schools. (Carter, of course being a Southerner, understood the dynamics quite
well.)

For these and other reasons, the idea that "conservatives" were ever on the
side of African-Americans on a political basis is absolutely ridiculous.

by: elegant escort

08-04-2011 @ 4:54am

Executive Elite...

Executive Elite, 18a Greycoat Gardens, Greycoat Street, London, SW1P 2QA, 028 2088 0135...

by: rabbitale

09-13-2009 @ 3:51am

I am so often saddened at the cutting remarks of persons who call themselves Christians. To be pointed is no sin, as Christ Himself regularly displayed, but to accuse and to use labels is unseemly. With some thought we all can identify who the Accuser of the Brethren is.
Is there a reason, brothers and sisters of various political opinions, that we cannot discuss issues without labeling each other?
My spirit is very distressed. No doubt many of us have spit out our replies with little thought. I fear we worship a god who looks rather like us. Let us study the Gospels again.

by: xfree9

09-13-2009 @ 2:32am

Way to backtrack! I should try this sometime when I say something stupid (which I have!) (I'm kidding, really)

by: Ded

08-14-2011 @ 1:08pm

Satic...

[

by: registry cleaners

07-04-2011 @ 10:50am

registry cleaners...

Good day! I could have sworn I've been to this site before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it's new to me. Anyways, I'm definitely happy I found it and I'll be book-marking and checking back frequently!...

by: Huntergreen

09-11-2009 @ 4:55pm

BlueDeacon, I very rarely comment on blogs, mostly because I don't have the time, but partly because people are so blinded by the the rhetoric fed them. Once you swallow that pill your not your own person. For the record, I choose not to be D or R because it causes you to defend what you don't embrace.
Each of your citations seem to be taken with narrow field of view as if you are trying extrapolate the tidbits from each that form your worldview. Do yourself a favor and dispense with the filters that form opinions and drop the resentments. I don't deny there are Southern bigots (as well as anywhere else) but that is not the primary reason of the migration. Its the moral element.

Ask yourself why the Blue areas of this country are so bankrupt. Crime and corruption is many many times higher. Demographics alone should cause people to reassess developed opinions. I wish you well.

by: rabbitale

09-13-2009 @ 1:51am

I am so often saddened at the cutting remarks of persons who call themselves Christians. To be pointed is no sin, as Christ Himself regularly displayed, but to accuse and to use labels is unseemly. With some thought we all can identify who the Accuser of the Brethren is.
Is there a reason, brothers and sisters of various political opinions, that we cannot discuss issues without labeling each other?
My spirit is very distressed. No doubt many of us have spit out our replies with little thought. I fear we worship a god who looks rather like us. Let us study the Gospels again.

by: xfree9

09-13-2009 @ 12:32am

Way to backtrack! I should try this sometime when I say something stupid (which I have!) (I'm kidding, really)

by: lumens

09-12-2009 @ 8:47pm

Conservatism isn't at all a populist ideology. It's not "against
something". It's against centralized governmental power, in part because
government is beholden to special interests. They lost in 2006, in part
because the pendelum always swings the other way, and in part because their
engagement of special interests rendered the party as hypocrites.

by: BlueDeacon

09-12-2009 @ 6:05pm

Whether they make a major dent, or reclaim the house, depends on whether
they can come up with a consistent, clear alternative. That alternative is
conservatism.

That is precisely why the Republicans will lose if they do; much of the
country outside the South has actually rejected it. Conservatism as a
populist ideology by its very nature is reactionary -- that is,
"against something" -- and the reason it started losing elections in
2006 was because it was finally exposed as being more for themselves and their
"special interests" than for the people they supposedly represented. Keep in
mind the lobbying scandal that ensnared a number of GOP candidates that year
was in fact was part and parcel of conservative culture from the outset
because its ultimate agenda always was to consolidate power in fewer and fewer
hands. But the badmouthing that conservatives still do against a
still-ineffective "left" will eventually wear thin, and I'm already predicting
an Obama landslide in 2012.

by: BlueDeacon

09-11-2009 @ 5:17pm

With all due respect, you showed that, in this instance, you truly don't know
what you're talking about. And I have a problem with that.

For openers, you mentioned that the Democratic Party was the true oppressor of
African-Americans; however, that was true only in the South because the
Republican Party was quite literally persona non grata down there because it
destroyed slavery. Blacks began to switch to the Democratic Party in the
North thanks to FDR, which is why the national Democratic Party eventually
became supportive of civil rights; in response, the reactionary right began
going Republican, where it has remained today. This is historical fact, and
if you don't want to accept it ... well, I can't help you.

As for the "moral element," that's also ridiculous because those issues didn't
come to light until the 1970s at the earliest. Roe v. Wade took place
only in 1973 and gay rights didn't become an issue until about a decade later,
and even there the folks who took the "conservative" side even today represent
only a minority of voters. On top of that, even many African-Americans are
anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage, but that doesn't stop them from
supporting Democratic candidates.

The point is that the conservative movement has always tried to run away from
its shameful record on race and racism; if anyone is resentful here it's the
right because it doesn't want to face the reality that it consistently has
acted unjustly. This particular thread, because of the touchiness of the
conservatives that have contributed to it, has proved that beyond a doubt.

by: lumens

09-12-2009 @ 5:49pm

There are newly registered Democrats in every state. The Dems have had
momentum. They do not at this point. The polls take into account those
newly registered Democrats. I wouldn't call Toomey a favorite in the
election, as Specter will probably play up his conservative credentials.

My broader point about the future of the party wasn't simply based on the
existence of Pat Toomey, so there isn't much point assessing his electoral
prospects, fun as it is to do so.

I would argue that Clinton changed the calculation for Democrats, thanks to
the revolution of 1994. Obama is certainly following his playbook, trying
to advance the bulk of his agenda early on so he can run to the middle later
in his campaign. Unfortunately, this plan sort of sacrifices the midterm
elections.

The Republicans will almost assuredly gain seats in 2010. Whether they make
a major dent, or reclaim the house, depends on whether they can come up with
a consistent, clear alternative. That alternative is conservatism.

by: Lawfor

08-03-2011 @ 1:19am

Act...

[

by: BlueDeacon

09-12-2009 @ 3:32pm

The average voter, at this point, is inclined to
favor Toomey, even though he's conservative. It's a myth that the
electorate has shifted leftward ideologically. There remain far more
conservatives than liberals.

You have zero basis on which to make that statement because you clearly don't know what goes on in Pennsylvania. In fact, Democratic registration has actually increased over the past five or so years in reaction to the heavy-handedness of the conservatives who run the GOP nationally.

Introduces a slightly different slate of
governmental programs is not a winning message.

As if your agenda is. In fact, Bill Clinton permanently changed the calculus at the expense of the conservative movement, which is still trying desperately to channel Ronald Reagan.

by: Taylor Lautner Workout

05-16-2011 @ 3:21am

Taylor Lautner Workout...

Also you might wanna' check out this blog I found here......

by: lumens

09-12-2009 @ 3:13pm

I am sure the gap will close as the battle wears on. The primary has
nothing to do with it. The average voter, at this point, is inclined to
favor Toomey, even though he's conservative. It's a myth that the
electorate has shifted leftward ideologically. There remain far more
conservatives than liberals.

If the Republicans send a bunch of centrist candidates to bat in 2010, they
will lose because their message will not be sufficiently distinct from that
of moderate Democrats. They need to make the case that Obama has committed
trillions of dollars, that the impact has been negligible, and that there is
a very good reason why this is so. Introduces a slightly different slate of
governmental programs is not a winning message.

by: BlueDeacon

09-12-2009 @ 1:53am

That's only because the campaign hasn't started and Specter has competition in
the Democratic primary. It wasn't Toomey that pushed him out; it was the fact
that his power base, the Rockefeller Republicans that dominated the
Philadelphia suburbs and the only true swing area in Pennsylvania, largely
became Democratic.

And as for the GOP not winning by staking out middle ground, that's the
standard conservative line. The right is still trying to convince itself that
"doctrinal purity" won them elections -- nonsense, it was the fact that until
recently its agenda mirrored the mood of the country. Times have changed, but
it hasn't changed with them.

by: seekingdisciple

09-11-2009 @ 10:44pm

When President George H.W. Bush gave a school speech much like Obama did, the Democrats cried foul and yet the liberal media said nothing yet somehow when Republicans do it it turns into cries of racism, etc. Sorry Brian, your double standard is wrong in this case. Your liberal world vision leads you to write such pieces like this that do nothing for Christianity nor conservatives like myself.

by: lumens

09-11-2009 @ 9:10pm

Toomey is ahead of Specter (the guy he pushed out of the GOP) in the polls,
so he certainly has a chance to get elected.

I have seen no evidence over the last several decades that Republicans
benefit electorally from staking the middle ground. That just hasn't played
out.

by: BlueDeacon

09-11-2009 @ 5:38pm

You're any better?

by: BlueDeacon

09-11-2009 @ 5:31pm

I think that folks like Pat Toomey, Steve Laffey, Michael Steele, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal are the future of the party.

Then the future of the party is bleak indeed. Toomey is as extreme as it comes -- he was president of the Club for Growth -- and doesn't have much of a chance to get elected because his kind pushed moderates out of the GOP in Pennsylvania.

by: eye exercises

06-21-2011 @ 5:36pm

For Your Information...

Im naive to blogging and recently heard about trackbacks, which I venture is a way for me to acknowledge your website through a linkback through my site. I found your site in the "currently buzzing" part of one of the bookmarking sites that I was po...

by: kosmetyki naturalne

07-21-2011 @ 11:07am

kosmetyki...

This design is incredible! You definitely know how to keep a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Excellent job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you ...

by: Huntergreen

09-11-2009 @ 4:55pm

BlueDeacon, I very rarely comment on blogs, mostly because I don't have the time, but partly because people are so blinded by the the rhetoric fed them. Once you swallow that pill your not your own person. For the record, I choose not to be D or R because it causes you to defend what you don't embrace.
Each of your citations seem to be taken with narrow field of view as if you are trying extrapolate the tidbits from each that form your worldview. Do yourself a favor and dispense with the filters that form opinions and drop the resentments. I don't deny there are Southern bigots (as well as anywhere else) but that is not the primary reason of the migration. Its the moral element.

Ask yourself why the Blue areas of this country are so bankrupt. Crime and corruption is many many times higher. Demographics alone should cause people to reassess developed opinions. I wish you well.

by: BlueDeacon

09-11-2009 @ 5:17pm

With all due respect, you showed that, in this instance, you truly don't know
what you're talking about. And I have a problem with that.

For openers, you mentioned that the Democratic Party was the true oppressor of
African-Americans; however, that was true only in the South because the
Republican Party was quite literally persona non grata down there because it
destroyed slavery. Blacks began to switch to the Democratic Party in the
North thanks to FDR, which is why the national Democratic Party eventually
became supportive of civil rights; in response, the reactionary right began
going Republican, where it has remained today. This is historical fact, and
if you don't want to accept it ... well, I can't help you.

As for the "moral element," that's also ridiculous because those issues didn't
come to light until the 1970s at the earliest. Roe v. Wade took place
only in 1973 and gay rights didn't become an issue until about a decade later,
and even there the folks who took the "conservative" side even today represent
only a minority of voters. On top of that, even many African-Americans are
anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage, but that doesn't stop them from
supporting Democratic candidates.

The point is that the conservative movement has always tried to run away from
its shameful record on race and racism; if anyone is resentful here it's the
right because it doesn't want to face the reality that it consistently has
acted unjustly. This particular thread, because of the touchiness of the
conservatives that have contributed to it, has proved that beyond a doubt.

by: nissan z350

07-19-2011 @ 7:59am

nissan z370...

Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...

by: bielizna damska

07-19-2011 @ 1:27pm

bielizna...

I'm truly enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Outstanding work!...

by: jazzact13

09-08-2009 @ 4:23pm

--I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president

Yep, when all else fails, accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie, but the press won't call you on it, and nor will sojo.

--There is also, I suspect, a good amount of modernist fear of postmodernity mixed in.

Oh, does this mean you've finally figured out what postmodernism is, Mr. McLaren? You aren't waffling on it now, like you did in A New Kind of Christian? Are you ready to commit to saying what postmodernism is?

--And where Christianity becomes a tribal religion rather than a reconciling faith - the exclusive and combative religion of rural non-coastal folks, for example, or Southern folks, or socially conservative folks, or folks who hold a certain economic ideology

More racism and regionalism on your part, Mr. McLaren. Tsk, tsk. I though you said in Everything Must Change that we shouldn't call names. Shame you don't practice what you write.

--Even if all President Obama stands for were as dastardly as the shouters, birthers, and nostalgics insinuate, can't some perceptive Republicans see the need to do what President Obama did to win the election - to inspire with some hope, rather than constantly pulling the levers of fear?

Maybe if you actually listened instead of operating on preconceived notions, you'd know that we do talk about hope. But this administration is against the things that make for hope, so there is nothing wrong with calling out that that is what's going on. Your socialistic agenda offers no hope--take that from someone who's been to a formal socialistic nation, I know what you're ideas are heading for, and they stink.

But so long as you're idea of "robust and civic dialogue and civil debate" is accusing the other side of racism and other nasty things, you'll not see that you are the one not engaging in such debate. Either learn a thing or two before writing again, or return to your religious liberal cave, please, because this article is singularly unhelpful to you.

by: BlueCollarTodd

09-08-2009 @ 4:30pm

I am just wondering how constructive it is for Liberals to call anyone who opposes Obama's policies a racist? Obama's former mentor, the Reverend Wright did just that as those defending the outspoken Marxist Van Jones. Since when is raises concerns about Marxism anything like being a racist? Try taking some of your own advise for once.

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 4:48pm

I think McLaren's call for a better leadership is definitely warranted, and by and large his criticisms are accurate. I would question a few things, though, regarding what exactly needs to change. It seems as though Democrats are no better in most of the criticisms aimed at Republicans. Those of us who are nonpartisan view this problem as a bipartisan problem, in that both parties are the problem. Or, better stated, they contribute to the set of problems in different but equally damaging ways.

I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president...
This sentence was carefully crafted, because McLaren did not say it was entirely behind it, like many of the left pundits are claiming. But saying that racism is behind all anti-Obama moves is like saying those who support Obama are "Obama worshipers"!

An unregulated fear-based politics will eventually crash just as an unregulated bubble-based economy will, but like a crashing economy, it can cause a huge amount of damage on its way down.
Fear-based politics is what is driving the change in Washington today. Obama is just as guilty of this as any Republican, though each side will inevitably say, "Yeah, but are fears are actually real!" But that misses the point. "We must act now...or else!" has been said by Obama/Biden various times about the economy, health care, and climate change. Even if they are right, this is no excuse for crisis-mongering. Scaring people to follow you is not leadership, it's cowardice and poor form.

(A small aside on the "bubble economy" parallel, bubbles only happen due to central planning of the money supply by an unfettered and unaccountable central bank like the Fed. It is not merely a product of the free market, which can have small booms and busts, but nothing of the cyclical sort we've seen since 1913. But that's another topic and can be dealt with later.)

by: Lord_Voldemort

09-08-2009 @ 5:07pm

Brian,

Your concern is touching, but a movement needs to police itself somewhat.

If you had been reading the National Review's blog, you would have seen a couple posts over the weekend where NR's own writers urged calm in response to Obama's address to students. You would have also seen a fairly strong rebuttal to "birthers", and a continuing debate over adjusting the conservative agenda to account for changes since the "Glory Days" of Reagan. Perhaps they were not as stinging as you would have liked, but there is a conservative organ issuing rejoinders to the shouters, the birthers, and the nostalgics.

Where is that on the left? Who on the left called on Speaker Pelosi to drop her own Nazi mongering? Who called on Van Jones to repudiate his own embrace of 9-11 conspiracy mongering. (That was a far worse smear if you ask me -- falsifying documents is a much less serious accusation than mass murder.)

If it was Sojo, I missed it.

Again, this is the kind of debate that the left wants, waged using Saul Alinsky's rules and tactics: personalized, manichean, ruthless. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's not your place to complain if we quit bringing knives to your gunfights.

LV

by: csack

09-08-2009 @ 5:11pm

how is it unacceptable to chastise people for using fear in the debate, and then call everyone who disagrees with the president racist?

i wish people would realize the huge non sequitor involved in calling people racist. if someone is racist that can lead to different views, but if someone has different views it doesn't follow that they are racist!

could it be i don't agree that the gov't is the best answer to our problems? could it be people were slightly creeped out by the suggested lesson plan accompanying the speech that asked for ways to help the president and the celeb-filled video pledging obedience? could it be people are getting skeptical of this cult of personality?

as it says in the psalms, do not put your faith in princes.

by: jazzact13

09-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

--Nor do the nostalgics, who seem to keep waking up in the 1980s year after year, quoting Ronald Reagan.

Or, worse yet, those pesky Founding Fathers, right? They were oh-so 200 years ago, correct, Mr McLaren?

Oh, and what do you say to those who keep trying to make Obama the second coming of FDR?

by: DITE

09-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

"But people who shout "Hitler, Nazi, socialist" don't constitute a worthy loyal opposition."

Um, yes. I think we can all agree that crazies on both sides are, well

by: Hannity2

09-08-2009 @ 5:30pm

The liberal definition of "civil debate" is agreeing with the liberal position. I don't seem to recall Mr. McLaren calling for "civil debate" among war protesters. I don't recall the outrage of Nazi rhetoric when war protestors were painting Hitler like mustaches on G.W. Bush. I don't recall the outrage when a movie was made about assasinating G.W. Bush. Where was the outrage when liberals were claming that Republican budgets would "starve all the school children who wouldn't get their free lunches". That's not a fear tactic is it?

And is it civil debate to call the other side a "racist" every time they don't agree with your policies. How many times can the race card be played?

Mr. McLaren.....this isn't about race. This is about the American people wising up to what the real agenda of the Obama administration is. Your line about so much being at stake is the truest part of your "lecture". The entire future of this country is at stake and the American people don't like the direction this administration is trying to take us.

And be clear..that Barak Obama is no Joshua. So you can pretend that you are much more "civil" than us conservatives. We'll just continue to cling to our guns and religion! We don't expect you to understand it.

by: JohnH54

09-08-2009 @ 5:42pm

Here we go again with one of BM's passive-aggressive attacks on conservatives.

Hey Brian, listen up: I'm a conservative as are many, not all, of the people I know. I do not know one, not one, who cares one wit what race BHO is.

Is that clear to you?

Does anyone else catch the irony in someone drunk with postmodern wine like BM is to think that he can actually describe the way the world is?

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:47pm

Yep, when all else fails, accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie, but the press won't call you on it, and nor will sojo.

Well, unless the conservatives actively reject racism and embrace reconciliation -- and most do not -- they will have that stigma because, in fact and despite your protestations, racism was always a major component of the modern conservative movement. There is a reason why most African-Americans vote Democratic, and it's not because of "welfare goodies" or affirmative action.

Your socialistic agenda offers no hope--take that from someone who's been to a formal socialistic nation, I know what you're ideas are heading for, and they stink.

Look who's calling names now. This is exactly the kind of unhelpful commentary that McLaren is talking about.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:51pm

This has NOTHING to do with Obama's policies -- it's about the fear of change, that "we won't be in control anymore." We've seen this before, when Bill Clinton was in the White House, only just a little more underhanded and underground.

And BTW, your concerns about Marxism are totally unfounded, especially since Marxism was completely materialistic and disdained the spiritual and thus and should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Obama. Shame.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:52pm

I'm a conservative as are many, not all, of the people I know. I do not know one, not one, who cares one wit what race BHO is.

Well, I know a lot who are.

by: best self tanner

07-18-2011 @ 4:46pm

I just linked to your site...

Im new to blogging and just learnt about trackbacks, which I venture is a way for me to recognize your website through a linkback through my site. I ran into your website in the "currently buzzing" part of one of the bookmarking sites that I was pos...

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 5:56pm

Your approach to this by calling people racist is getting tired and old. It's about as useful as my calling you an Obama worshiper insistently, when you repeatedly claim that you worship Jesus and not a human being.

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 5:57pm

Maybe you should get out more, or perhaps believe most of us when we say we don't really care about Obama's race. Your insistence is simply wrong.

by: JohnH54

09-08-2009 @ 5:59pm

Well BlueDeacon, I guess we here in Ohio have moved past race unlike people in Western PA. Virtually all of the ones that I know voted for Ken Blackwell because race did not make a difference. It was about values and the issues.

by: BlueCollarTodd

09-08-2009 @ 6:02pm

Obama sat in a church for 20 years that preached Marxist Theology, or called Liberal Theology. That is what is so dangerous to Christians. Two incommensurable beliefs systems have attempted to by synthesized by Liberals, thus undermining Christianity. How one can deny Obama's Marxist leanings is beyond me. The larger point is that to be critical of Marxism is now like being a racist, that is the shame.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 6:08pm

That's ridiculous. As I said, we saw this under Clinton, who was white.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 6:17pm

Because you don't know what Marxism actually teaches -- I read "The Communist Manifesto" and other Marxist literature a generation ago, and it isn't even close. And if you want to be fair, so-called "conservative" Christianity subscribes to an even more defective worldview -- that it's Biblically defensible for those who have to look down on those who don't and assume that "they're trying to get what we have." Such demonstrates a form of practical atheism and lack of compassion because they don't recognize the advantages that they had. That's the bottom line. (Oh, and BTW, much of "The Communist Manifesto" could have been lifted from the Minor Prophets, all of whom I have also read.)

by: jazzact13

09-08-2009 @ 4:23pm

--I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president

Yep, when all else fails, accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie, but the press won't call you on it, and nor will sojo.

--There is also, I suspect, a good amount of modernist fear of postmodernity mixed in.

Oh, does this mean you've finally figured out what postmodernism is, Mr. McLaren? You aren't waffling on it now, like you did in A New Kind of Christian? Are you ready to commit to saying what postmodernism is?

--And where Christianity becomes a tribal religion rather than a reconciling faith - the exclusive and combative religion of rural non-coastal folks, for example, or Southern folks, or socially conservative folks, or folks who hold a certain economic ideology

More racism and regionalism on your part, Mr. McLaren. Tsk, tsk. I though you said in Everything Must Change that we shouldn't call names. Shame you don't practice what you write.

--Even if all President Obama stands for were as dastardly as the shouters, birthers, and nostalgics insinuate, can't some perceptive Republicans see the need to do what President Obama did to win the election - to inspire with some hope, rather than constantly pulling the levers of fear?

Maybe if you actually listened instead of operating on preconceived notions, you'd know that we do talk about hope. But this administration is against the things that make for hope, so there is nothing wrong with calling out that that is what's going on. Your socialistic agenda offers no hope--take that from someone who's been to a formal socialistic nation, I know what you're ideas are heading for, and they stink.

But so long as you're idea of "robust and civic dialogue and civil debate" is accusing the other side of racism and other nasty things, you'll not see that you are the one not engaging in such debate. Either learn a thing or two before writing again, or return to your religious liberal cave, please, because this article is singularly unhelpful to you.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: jazzact13

09-08-2009 @ 4:23pm

--I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president

Yep, when all else fails, accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie, but the press won't call you on it, and nor will sojo.

--There is also, I suspect, a good amount of modernist fear of postmodernity mixed in.

Oh, does this mean you've finally figured out what postmodernism is, Mr. McLaren? You aren't waffling on it now, like you did in A New Kind of Christian? Are you ready to commit to saying what postmodernism is?

--And where Christianity becomes a tribal religion rather than a reconciling faith - the exclusive and combative religion of rural non-coastal folks, for example, or Southern folks, or socially conservative folks, or folks who hold a certain economic ideology

More racism and regionalism on your part, Mr. McLaren. Tsk, tsk. I though you said in Everything Must Change that we shouldn't call names. Shame you don't practice what you write.

--Even if all President Obama stands for were as dastardly as the shouters, birthers, and nostalgics insinuate, can't some perceptive Republicans see the need to do what President Obama did to win the election - to inspire with some hope, rather than constantly pulling the levers of fear?

Maybe if you actually listened instead of operating on preconceived notions, you'd know that we do talk about hope. But this administration is against the things that make for hope, so there is nothing wrong with calling out that that is what's going on. Your socialistic agenda offers no hope--take that from someone who's been to a formal socialistic nation, I know what you're ideas are heading for, and they stink.

But so long as you're idea of "robust and civic dialogue and civil debate" is accusing the other side of racism and other nasty things, you'll not see that you are the one not engaging in such debate. Either learn a thing or two before writing again, or return to your religious liberal cave, please, because this article is singularly unhelpful to you.

by: jazzact13

09-08-2009 @ 4:23pm

--I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president

Yep, when all else fails, accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie, but the press won't call you on it, and nor will sojo.

--There is also, I suspect, a good amount of modernist fear of postmodernity mixed in.

Oh, does this mean you've finally figured out what postmodernism is, Mr. McLaren? You aren't waffling on it now, like you did in A New Kind of Christian? Are you ready to commit to saying what postmodernism is?

--And where Christianity becomes a tribal religion rather than a reconciling faith - the exclusive and combative religion of rural non-coastal folks, for example, or Southern folks, or socially conservative folks, or folks who hold a certain economic ideology

More racism and regionalism on your part, Mr. McLaren. Tsk, tsk. I though you said in Everything Must Change that we shouldn't call names. Shame you don't practice what you write.

--Even if all President Obama stands for were as dastardly as the shouters, birthers, and nostalgics insinuate, can't some perceptive Republicans see the need to do what President Obama did to win the election - to inspire with some hope, rather than constantly pulling the levers of fear?

Maybe if you actually listened instead of operating on preconceived notions, you'd know that we do talk about hope. But this administration is against the things that make for hope, so there is nothing wrong with calling out that that is what's going on. Your socialistic agenda offers no hope--take that from someone who's been to a formal socialistic nation, I know what you're ideas are heading for, and they stink.

But so long as you're idea of "robust and civic dialogue and civil debate" is accusing the other side of racism and other nasty things, you'll not see that you are the one not engaging in such debate. Either learn a thing or two before writing again, or return to your religious liberal cave, please, because this article is singularly unhelpful to you.

by: BlueCollarTodd

09-08-2009 @ 4:30pm

I am just wondering how constructive it is for Liberals to call anyone who opposes Obama's policies a racist? Obama's former mentor, the Reverend Wright did just that as those defending the outspoken Marxist Van Jones. Since when is raises concerns about Marxism anything like being a racist? Try taking some of your own advise for once.

by: BlueCollarTodd

09-08-2009 @ 4:30pm

I am just wondering how constructive it is for Liberals to call anyone who opposes Obama's policies a racist? Obama's former mentor, the Reverend Wright did just that as those defending the outspoken Marxist Van Jones. Since when is raises concerns about Marxism anything like being a racist? Try taking some of your own advise for once.

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 4:48pm

I think McLaren's call for a better leadership is definitely warranted, and by and large his criticisms are accurate. I would question a few things, though, regarding what exactly needs to change. It seems as though Democrats are no better in most of the criticisms aimed at Republicans. Those of us who are nonpartisan view this problem as a bipartisan problem, in that both parties are the problem. Or, better stated, they contribute to the set of problems in different but equally damaging ways.

I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president...
This sentence was carefully crafted, because McLaren did not say it was entirely behind it, like many of the left pundits are claiming. But saying that racism is behind all anti-Obama moves is like saying those who support Obama are "Obama worshipers"!

An unregulated fear-based politics will eventually crash just as an unregulated bubble-based economy will, but like a crashing economy, it can cause a huge amount of damage on its way down.
Fear-based politics is what is driving the change in Washington today. Obama is just as guilty of this as any Republican, though each side will inevitably say, "Yeah, but are fears are actually real!" But that misses the point. "We must act now...or else!" has been said by Obama/Biden various times about the economy, health care, and climate change. Even if they are right, this is no excuse for crisis-mongering. Scaring people to follow you is not leadership, it's cowardice and poor form.

(A small aside on the "bubble economy" parallel, bubbles only happen due to central planning of the money supply by an unfettered and unaccountable central bank like the Fed. It is not merely a product of the free market, which can have small booms and busts, but nothing of the cyclical sort we've seen since 1913. But that's another topic and can be dealt with later.)

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 4:48pm

I think McLaren's call for a better leadership is definitely warranted, and by and large his criticisms are accurate. I would question a few things, though, regarding what exactly needs to change. It seems as though Democrats are no better in most of the criticisms aimed at Republicans. Those of us who are nonpartisan view this problem as a bipartisan problem, in that both parties are the problem. Or, better stated, they contribute to the set of problems in different but equally damaging ways.

I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president...
This sentence was carefully crafted, because McLaren did not say it was entirely behind it, like many of the left pundits are claiming. But saying that racism is behind all anti-Obama moves is like saying those who support Obama are "Obama worshipers"!

An unregulated fear-based politics will eventually crash just as an unregulated bubble-based economy will, but like a crashing economy, it can cause a huge amount of damage on its way down.
Fear-based politics is what is driving the change in Washington today. Obama is just as guilty of this as any Republican, though each side will inevitably say, "Yeah, but are fears are actually real!" But that misses the point. "We must act now...or else!" has been said by Obama/Biden various times about the economy, health care, and climate change. Even if they are right, this is no excuse for crisis-mongering. Scaring people to follow you is not leadership, it's cowardice and poor form.

(A small aside on the "bubble economy" parallel, bubbles only happen due to central planning of the money supply by an unfettered and unaccountable central bank like the Fed. It is not merely a product of the free market, which can have small booms and busts, but nothing of the cyclical sort we've seen since 1913. But that's another topic and can be dealt with later.)

by: Lord_Voldemort

09-08-2009 @ 5:07pm

Brian,

Your concern is touching, but a movement needs to police itself somewhat.

If you had been reading the National Review's blog, you would have seen a couple posts over the weekend where NR's own writers urged calm in response to Obama's address to students. You would have also seen a fairly strong rebuttal to "birthers", and a continuing debate over adjusting the conservative agenda to account for changes since the "Glory Days" of Reagan. Perhaps they were not as stinging as you would have liked, but there is a conservative organ issuing rejoinders to the shouters, the birthers, and the nostalgics.

Where is that on the left? Who on the left called on Speaker Pelosi to drop her own Nazi mongering? Who called on Van Jones to repudiate his own embrace of 9-11 conspiracy mongering. (That was a far worse smear if you ask me -- falsifying documents is a much less serious accusation than mass murder.)

If it was Sojo, I missed it.

Again, this is the kind of debate that the left wants, waged using Saul Alinsky's rules and tactics: personalized, manichean, ruthless. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's not your place to complain if we quit bringing knives to your gunfights.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

09-08-2009 @ 5:07pm

Brian,

Your concern is touching, but a movement needs to police itself somewhat.

If you had been reading the National Review's blog, you would have seen a couple posts over the weekend where NR's own writers urged calm in response to Obama's address to students. You would have also seen a fairly strong rebuttal to "birthers", and a continuing debate over adjusting the conservative agenda to account for changes since the "Glory Days" of Reagan. Perhaps they were not as stinging as you would have liked, but there is a conservative organ issuing rejoinders to the shouters, the birthers, and the nostalgics.

Where is that on the left? Who on the left called on Speaker Pelosi to drop her own Nazi mongering? Who called on Van Jones to repudiate his own embrace of 9-11 conspiracy mongering. (That was a far worse smear if you ask me -- falsifying documents is a much less serious accusation than mass murder.)

If it was Sojo, I missed it.

Again, this is the kind of debate that the left wants, waged using Saul Alinsky's rules and tactics: personalized, manichean, ruthless. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's not your place to complain if we quit bringing knives to your gunfights.

LV

by: csack

09-08-2009 @ 5:11pm

how is it unacceptable to chastise people for using fear in the debate, and then call everyone who disagrees with the president racist?

i wish people would realize the huge non sequitor involved in calling people racist. if someone is racist that can lead to different views, but if someone has different views it doesn't follow that they are racist!

could it be i don't agree that the gov't is the best answer to our problems? could it be people were slightly creeped out by the suggested lesson plan accompanying the speech that asked for ways to help the president and the celeb-filled video pledging obedience? could it be people are getting skeptical of this cult of personality?

as it says in the psalms, do not put your faith in princes.

by: csack

09-08-2009 @ 5:11pm

how is it unacceptable to chastise people for using fear in the debate, and then call everyone who disagrees with the president racist?

i wish people would realize the huge non sequitor involved in calling people racist. if someone is racist that can lead to different views, but if someone has different views it doesn't follow that they are racist!

could it be i don't agree that the gov't is the best answer to our problems? could it be people were slightly creeped out by the suggested lesson plan accompanying the speech that asked for ways to help the president and the celeb-filled video pledging obedience? could it be people are getting skeptical of this cult of personality?

as it says in the psalms, do not put your faith in princes.

by: jazzact13

09-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

--Nor do the nostalgics, who seem to keep waking up in the 1980s year after year, quoting Ronald Reagan.

Or, worse yet, those pesky Founding Fathers, right? They were oh-so 200 years ago, correct, Mr McLaren?

Oh, and what do you say to those who keep trying to make Obama the second coming of FDR?

by: jazzact13

09-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

--Nor do the nostalgics, who seem to keep waking up in the 1980s year after year, quoting Ronald Reagan.

Or, worse yet, those pesky Founding Fathers, right? They were oh-so 200 years ago, correct, Mr McLaren?

Oh, and what do you say to those who keep trying to make Obama the second coming of FDR?

by: DITE

09-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

"But people who shout "Hitler, Nazi, socialist" don't constitute a worthy loyal opposition."

Um, yes. I think we can all agree that crazies on both sides are, well

by: DITE

09-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

"But people who shout "Hitler, Nazi, socialist" don't constitute a worthy loyal opposition."

Um, yes. I think we can all agree that crazies on both sides are, well

by: Hannity2

09-08-2009 @ 5:30pm

The liberal definition of "civil debate" is agreeing with the liberal position. I don't seem to recall Mr. McLaren calling for "civil debate" among war protesters. I don't recall the outrage of Nazi rhetoric when war protestors were painting Hitler like mustaches on G.W. Bush. I don't recall the outrage when a movie was made about assasinating G.W. Bush. Where was the outrage when liberals were claming that Republican budgets would "starve all the school children who wouldn't get their free lunches". That's not a fear tactic is it?

And is it civil debate to call the other side a "racist" every time they don't agree with your policies. How many times can the race card be played?

Mr. McLaren.....this isn't about race. This is about the American people wising up to what the real agenda of the Obama administration is. Your line about so much being at stake is the truest part of your "lecture". The entire future of this country is at stake and the American people don't like the direction this administration is trying to take us.

And be clear..that Barak Obama is no Joshua. So you can pretend that you are much more "civil" than us conservatives. We'll just continue to cling to our guns and religion! We don't expect you to understand it.

by: Hannity2

09-08-2009 @ 5:30pm

The liberal definition of "civil debate" is agreeing with the liberal position. I don't seem to recall Mr. McLaren calling for "civil debate" among war protesters. I don't recall the outrage of Nazi rhetoric when war protestors were painting Hitler like mustaches on G.W. Bush. I don't recall the outrage when a movie was made about assasinating G.W. Bush. Where was the outrage when liberals were claming that Republican budgets would "starve all the school children who wouldn't get their free lunches". That's not a fear tactic is it?

And is it civil debate to call the other side a "racist" every time they don't agree with your policies. How many times can the race card be played?

Mr. McLaren.....this isn't about race. This is about the American people wising up to what the real agenda of the Obama administration is. Your line about so much being at stake is the truest part of your "lecture". The entire future of this country is at stake and the American people don't like the direction this administration is trying to take us.

And be clear..that Barak Obama is no Joshua. So you can pretend that you are much more "civil" than us conservatives. We'll just continue to cling to our guns and religion! We don't expect you to understand it.

by: JohnH54

09-08-2009 @ 5:42pm

Here we go again with one of BM's passive-aggressive attacks on conservatives.

Hey Brian, listen up: I'm a conservative as are many, not all, of the people I know. I do not know one, not one, who cares one wit what race BHO is.

Is that clear to you?

Does anyone else catch the irony in someone drunk with postmodern wine like BM is to think that he can actually describe the way the world is?

by: JohnH54

09-08-2009 @ 5:42pm

Here we go again with one of BM's passive-aggressive attacks on conservatives.

Hey Brian, listen up: I'm a conservative as are many, not all, of the people I know. I do not know one, not one, who cares one wit what race BHO is.

Is that clear to you?

Does anyone else catch the irony in someone drunk with postmodern wine like BM is to think that he can actually describe the way the world is?

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:47pm

Yep, when all else fails, accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie, but the press won't call you on it, and nor will sojo.

Well, unless the conservatives actively reject racism and embrace reconciliation -- and most do not -- they will have that stigma because, in fact and despite your protestations, racism was always a major component of the modern conservative movement. There is a reason why most African-Americans vote Democratic, and it's not because of "welfare goodies" or affirmative action.

Your socialistic agenda offers no hope--take that from someone who's been to a formal socialistic nation, I know what you're ideas are heading for, and they stink.

Look who's calling names now. This is exactly the kind of unhelpful commentary that McLaren is talking about.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:47pm

Yep, when all else fails, accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie, but the press won't call you on it, and nor will sojo.

Well, unless the conservatives actively reject racism and embrace reconciliation -- and most do not -- they will have that stigma because, in fact and despite your protestations, racism was always a major component of the modern conservative movement. There is a reason why most African-Americans vote Democratic, and it's not because of "welfare goodies" or affirmative action.

Your socialistic agenda offers no hope--take that from someone who's been to a formal socialistic nation, I know what you're ideas are heading for, and they stink.

Look who's calling names now. This is exactly the kind of unhelpful commentary that McLaren is talking about.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:51pm

This has NOTHING to do with Obama's policies -- it's about the fear of change, that "we won't be in control anymore." We've seen this before, when Bill Clinton was in the White House, only just a little more underhanded and underground.

And BTW, your concerns about Marxism are totally unfounded, especially since Marxism was completely materialistic and disdained the spiritual and thus and should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Obama. Shame.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:51pm

This has NOTHING to do with Obama's policies -- it's about the fear of change, that "we won't be in control anymore." We've seen this before, when Bill Clinton was in the White House, only just a little more underhanded and underground.

And BTW, your concerns about Marxism are totally unfounded, especially since Marxism was completely materialistic and disdained the spiritual and thus and should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Obama. Shame.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:52pm

I'm a conservative as are many, not all, of the people I know. I do not know one, not one, who cares one wit what race BHO is.

Well, I know a lot who are.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 5:52pm

I'm a conservative as are many, not all, of the people I know. I do not know one, not one, who cares one wit what race BHO is.

Well, I know a lot who are.

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 5:56pm

Your approach to this by calling people racist is getting tired and old. It's about as useful as my calling you an Obama worshiper insistently, when you repeatedly claim that you worship Jesus and not a human being.

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 5:56pm

Your approach to this by calling people racist is getting tired and old. It's about as useful as my calling you an Obama worshiper insistently, when you repeatedly claim that you worship Jesus and not a human being.

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 5:57pm

Maybe you should get out more, or perhaps believe most of us when we say we don't really care about Obama's race. Your insistence is simply wrong.

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 5:57pm

Maybe you should get out more, or perhaps believe most of us when we say we don't really care about Obama's race. Your insistence is simply wrong.

by: JohnH54

09-08-2009 @ 5:59pm

Well BlueDeacon, I guess we here in Ohio have moved past race unlike people in Western PA. Virtually all of the ones that I know voted for Ken Blackwell because race did not make a difference. It was about values and the issues.

by: JohnH54

09-08-2009 @ 5:59pm

Well BlueDeacon, I guess we here in Ohio have moved past race unlike people in Western PA. Virtually all of the ones that I know voted for Ken Blackwell because race did not make a difference. It was about values and the issues.

by: BlueCollarTodd

09-08-2009 @ 6:02pm

Obama sat in a church for 20 years that preached Marxist Theology, or called Liberal Theology. That is what is so dangerous to Christians. Two incommensurable beliefs systems have attempted to by synthesized by Liberals, thus undermining Christianity. How one can deny Obama's Marxist leanings is beyond me. The larger point is that to be critical of Marxism is now like being a racist, that is the shame.

by: BlueCollarTodd

09-08-2009 @ 6:02pm

Obama sat in a church for 20 years that preached Marxist Theology, or called Liberal Theology. That is what is so dangerous to Christians. Two incommensurable beliefs systems have attempted to by synthesized by Liberals, thus undermining Christianity. How one can deny Obama's Marxist leanings is beyond me. The larger point is that to be critical of Marxism is now like being a racist, that is the shame.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 6:08pm

That's ridiculous. As I said, we saw this under Clinton, who was white.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 6:08pm

That's ridiculous. As I said, we saw this under Clinton, who was white.

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 6:17pm

Because you don't know what Marxism actually teaches -- I read "The Communist Manifesto" and other Marxist literature a generation ago, and it isn't even close. And if you want to be fair, so-called "conservative" Christianity subscribes to an even more defective worldview -- that it's Biblically defensible for those who have to look down on those who don't and assume that "they're trying to get what we have." Such demonstrates a form of practical atheism and lack of compassion because they don't recognize the advantages that they had. That's the bottom line. (Oh, and BTW, much of "The Communist Manifesto" could have been lifted from the Minor Prophets, all of whom I have also read.)

by: BlueDeacon

09-08-2009 @ 6:17pm

Because you don't know what Marxism actually teaches -- I read "The Communist Manifesto" and other Marxist literature a generation ago, and it isn't even close. And if you want to be fair, so-called "conservative" Christianity subscribes to an even more defective worldview -- that it's Biblically defensible for those who have to look down on those who don't and assume that "they're trying to get what we have." Such demonstrates a form of practical atheism and lack of compassion because they don't recognize the advantages that they had. That's the bottom line. (Oh, and BTW, much of "The Communist Manifesto" could have been lifted from the Minor Prophets, all of whom I have also read.)

by: letjusticerolldown

09-08-2009 @ 9:25pm

It is worthy to debate and counter his actual beliefs and proposals. I don't think we get anywhere by debating whether we can make a certain label stick. It would demand a thorough review of Marxist thought and Obama thought.

I think Obama is beyond Rev. Wright although Rev. Wright was instrumental in getting him there. But we have to be fair in analysis of Wright and Trinity Church. The journey they have been on is walking out the Christian faith within a historical context of a racist nation. One option is to cede the territory to groups like the Nation of Islam.

Without getting into Rev Wright, suffice it to say, the response of the dominant segment of white evangelicalism to an overtly cruel racist system is anything but stellar. Rev Wright has at least attempted to bring the Gospel to bear. I have a hunch if some white evangelicals walked hand-in-hand with him his answer might have looked like, walked like, and talked like something a little different.

The theology of American evangelicalism is shaped by scripture--and many other things. If we listen to liberation theologies, we don't have to agree with them, but they help us to reflect back on where our theologies and ways of living out our faith have become hostage to our culture and to other gods. That I believe would be a great gift to us.

I would like us to listen a bit more to each other and not dismiss each other so readily. If we would do so, safeguarding our relationships, we would all grow in grace and the fullness of Christ more readily.

It is for God's glory we all exist.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-08-2009 @ 9:25pm

It is worthy to debate and counter his actual beliefs and proposals. I don't think we get anywhere by debating whether we can make a certain label stick. It would demand a thorough review of Marxist thought and Obama thought.

I think Obama is beyond Rev. Wright although Rev. Wright was instrumental in getting him there. But we have to be fair in analysis of Wright and Trinity Church. The journey they have been on is walking out the Christian faith within a historical context of a racist nation. One option is to cede the territory to groups like the Nation of Islam.

Without getting into Rev Wright, suffice it to say, the response of the dominant segment of white evangelicalism to an overtly cruel racist system is anything but stellar. Rev Wright has at least attempted to bring the Gospel to bear. I have a hunch if some white evangelicals walked hand-in-hand with him his answer might have looked like, walked like, and talked like something a little different.

The theology of American evangelicalism is shaped by scripture--and many other things. If we listen to liberation theologies, we don't have to agree with them, but they help us to reflect back on where our theologies and ways of living out our faith have become hostage to our culture and to other gods. That I believe would be a great gift to us.

I would like us to listen a bit more to each other and not dismiss each other so readily. If we would do so, safeguarding our relationships, we would all grow in grace and the fullness of Christ more readily.

It is for God's glory we all exist.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-08-2009 @ 9:40pm

"accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie"

And he didn't.

He said, "I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction."

Please debate the content of his point and explain why. You may well be right.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-08-2009 @ 9:40pm

"accuse us conservatives of racism. It's a lie"

And he didn't.

He said, "I'm convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction."

Please debate the content of his point and explain why. You may well be right.

by: kevinmcgill

09-08-2009 @ 10:28pm

If it's not racism, then what do you call it? The yelling, the accusing the man of not being born here, the Hitler/Obama posters, it's like nothing I've ever seen. Funny, some whites today have changed there speech, behavior, but not their attitudes. But when someone with discernment can see something that walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we're told "that not what that is." It's the same old thing. And trying to tell us don't call me a racist when everything about this is racist is rediculous. I am conservative, a republican, and black. I've voted Republican right down the line. But I see waht going on with this man. He hasn't been in office half the term and you make him out to be worst that Satan. You didn't do that to any of the other presidents before him.

by: kevinmcgill

09-08-2009 @ 10:28pm

If it's not racism, then what do you call it? The yelling, the accusing the man of not being born here, the Hitler/Obama posters, it's like nothing I've ever seen. Funny, some whites today have changed there speech, behavior, but not their attitudes. But when someone with discernment can see something that walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we're told "that not what that is." It's the same old thing. And trying to tell us don't call me a racist when everything about this is racist is rediculous. I am conservative, a republican, and black. I've voted Republican right down the line. But I see waht going on with this man. He hasn't been in office half the term and you make him out to be worst that Satan. You didn't do that to any of the other presidents before him.

by: natcoz

09-08-2009 @ 11:01pm

Maybe some "conservatives" are racist...and I'm betting some "liberals" are racist too. It makes no sense to pull the racist card when someone raises an issue they feel is legitimate and doesn't mention race. And it makes no sense to stereotype the folks who object to Obama's speech to school children. Sure, sure...many of them might not be thinking objectively, and may be just jumping on the band wagon. But even that can't necessarily be classified as racism.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike what Obama has done and is doing without even being aware of his race. And yes, it's perfectly legitimate to raise the issue of natural-born citizenship, since the constitution was written that way for a reason (a reason which most people no longer understand).

How are we gonna get out of this bi-partisanship? Doesn't anyone see that it's not about Repubs vs. Dems? There's more going on here than the drama we see in the media. We've gotta be smarter than this.

Democracy is indeed a problem. This article explains why. http://mises.org/story/3686

We've gotta wise up and rise above the pettiness.

by: natcoz

09-08-2009 @ 11:01pm

Maybe some "conservatives" are racist...and I'm betting some "liberals" are racist too. It makes no sense to pull the racist card when someone raises an issue they feel is legitimate and doesn't mention race. And it makes no sense to stereotype the folks who object to Obama's speech to school children. Sure, sure...many of them might not be thinking objectively, and may be just jumping on the band wagon. But even that can't necessarily be classified as racism.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike what Obama has done and is doing without even being aware of his race. And yes, it's perfectly legitimate to raise the issue of natural-born citizenship, since the constitution was written that way for a reason (a reason which most people no longer understand).

How are we gonna get out of this bi-partisanship? Doesn't anyone see that it's not about Repubs vs. Dems? There's more going on here than the drama we see in the media. We've gotta be smarter than this.

Democracy is indeed a problem. This article explains why. http://mises.org/story/3686

We've gotta wise up and rise above the pettiness.

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 11:08pm

Bush was compared to Hitler, and was hated from Day One because of the controversy of his being elected president. I don't think it's racism, though perhaps there are some who are racists.

There will always be folks who, at the outset, will oppose just about any president. And both sides will always have their extreme opposition groups. But when the populace opposes something, they are typified into being "extremists."

by: xfree9

09-08-2009 @ 11:08pm

Bush was compared to Hitler, and was hated from Day One because of the controversy of his being elected president. I don't think it's racism, though perhaps there are some who are racists.

There will always be folks who, at the outset, will oppose just about any president. And both sides will always have their extreme opposition groups. But when the populace opposes something, they are typified into being "extremists."

by: kevinmcgill

09-08-2009 @ 11:19pm

Sorry it just doesn't add up. I'm weighing the thoughts and actions of some against this man because I not only hear the words but I see the faces. These are not calm rational people, they're emotionally charged to the point it puts my stomach in knots. I lived to long a experienced too much for people to tell me when something like this is right. And as far as natural born citizen ship goes, his birth certificate has been on display numerous times, but that still not good enough. And it's not legitimate unless you going to do it to every president. And as far as his speech was concerned, people objected before knowing the content of the speech. Only that it was from President Obama. When you judge a man before you know a man what do you call that? And yes I agree some liberals are racists too. Only I'n this side of the fence with people that I believed in. Don't tell me it's not there.

by: kevinmcgill

09-08-2009 @ 11:19pm

Sorry it just doesn't add up. I'm weighing the thoughts and actions of some against this man because I not only hear the words but I see the faces. These are not calm rational people, they're emotionally charged to the point it puts my stomach in knots. I lived to long a experienced too much for people to tell me when something like this is right. And as far as natural born citizen ship goes, his birth certificate has been on display numerous times, but that still not good enough. And it's not legitimate unless you going to do it to every president. And as far as his speech was concerned, people objected before knowing the content of the speech. Only that it was from President Obama. When you judge a man before you know a man what do you call that? And yes I agree some liberals are racists too. Only I'n this side of the fence with people that I believed in. Don't tell me it's not there.

by: kevinmcgill

09-08-2009 @ 11:27pm

Go in peace my friend. Were all Americans.

by: kevinmcgill

09-08-2009 @ 11:27pm

Go in peace my friend. Were all Americans.