I ran across this article the other day. I read it once, then it stewed for a bit and I reread it again and found that it is the best description of the process I use - naturally, it takes somebody else to articulate it properly...
America Needs an Agnostic in the White House
Posted February 18, 2008 | 06:48 PM (EST)
Read More: Agnostic, Agnosticism, Atheism, Atheists, Faith, Fundamentalism, Religion, Theism, Breaking Politics News
First, let's clear up some misconceptions and clearly define agnosticism. There are varying degrees of agnosticism, which confuses the debate when used interchangeably. For instance, "strong agnostics" -- such as philosopher David Hume -- say the existence or nonexistence of God or the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable. "Atheistic agnostics" believe, based on logic, that God and the metaphysical world definitely do not exist.
But, it's not logical to say we can never truly know if there is a God, because as our scientific knowledge and investigative powers increase, our concepts of the universe constantly evolves. We discover new concepts that change our reality of the Universe: the lights in the sky are starts, the world is round, the theory of relativity, etc.
Scientists, theists and metaphysicians has all proposed various unproven theories of why we exist (in the spiritual, not physical sense) and what caused the beginning of the Universe (the "first mover"). But it's all conjecture and, as such, can simply be adapted to various political and social structures.
The best president would be one who believes in "weak agnosticism," which states that even though there is currently no evidence for the metaphysical or God, that does not mean evidence won't be discovered tomorrow. In other words, people can continue to be rationally justified in believing in the metaphysical until there is positive evidence to the contrary. Simply not having proof of the metaphysical or a "creator" is not enough empirical evidence to the contrary. An omnipotent God is unlikely, but we don't know for sure.
An agnostic president would respect all views, take them into account and than propose the best solutions. His/her values and beliefs are based in reality, logic, evidence and the present moment. Unlike theists that believe in some mysterious realm beyond time, physics and space.
Part of the mess in Iraq is due to Bush believing that this is a holy war pitting Muslim "fascism" (he uses the term incorrectly) versus Christian democracy. Instead of weighing the facts and expert advice about the situation, Bush went to war with God on his side against the "evil doer." The attacks of 9/11 and the response on both sides, have had as much to do about religion as oil.
More lives have been lost in religious wars than for any other reason in human history because religion can stir the soul to justify and rationalize heinous acts. Agnostics are less likely to go to war since they are ultimately pragmatic and usually resorting to violence is not pragmatic. Religious fundamentalism around the world would be met with cool reasoning.
An agnostic will take religion out of the equation, except when dealing with religious people and how their beliefs might affect various outcomes. Agnostics believe anything is possible and will respectfully acknowledge the religious beliefs of others, but will only act with evidence.
"So, you theorize that gay people are sinners and, thus, require punishment? That could be possible, but no one has proven it yet. Since it has not been proven, let's keep it in the very distant realm of possibility, but not act on that theory. Instead, let's continue with policies that assume gay people are simply an expression of biodiversity, requiring no unequal treatment. But, I will remember that you believe this since it affects the way you behave and communicate."
Political decisions are made with the common good in mind. In many ways, agnostics conduct their lives as humanists do: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. He/she holds that people should think out questions of conduct for themselves. In addition to reason, agnostics also rely on emotion, feeling and desire and are usually very empathic to others.
Contrary to what religious folk say, agnostics are not nihilists or "wishy washy" in any way. Just because they are not bound by religious morals does not mean they "do whatever they please." They are concrete, scientific and rational. They are bound by "man's laws" and follow our innate social and biological axioms that help us to live in harmony (thou shall not kill, steal, etc.).
You don't need to believe in life after death or a higher purpose to cherish and value life. In fact, since Agnostics are truly rooted in the present and short of time, life if even more precious now. Agnostics are not marking time or blowing off mistakes by justifying that they can do better next time around or hoping for a "do over" to get to a good place in the afterlife.
Plus, since agnostics believe that anything is possible, there are always those nagging metaphysical possibilities at the back of their minds. We certainly could appear at the pearly gates after death...or return to this world as Paris Hilton's next Chihuahua...or this world could be another planet's hell... or we are all living in a giant computer generated animation... or life is just a big test in God college. We can speculate all we want and there are an infinite number of spiritual theories we humans can create.
Theists and atheists seem to have less respect for human life than agnostics. Not only do agnostics believe that there could be life after death, karma, retribution, etc. but they also believe this world, right now, might be all we have. This makes this life even more precious than for atheists, whose rationale for life is more materialistic. Agnostics have to walk a thin line: live for the moment but also for the future, just in case there is more.
Atheists cannot know for certain that the metaphysical does not exist. Do atheists really think they know that nothing will ever will be discovered beyond our current, physically knowable world? That's just as naive as theists blindly believing in Gods without any proof. While atheists might have a slight upper hand over theists since there is currently is no credible proof of a God or supernatural world, agnostics sit back and ask both groups: "Prove your belief!"
One thing we all know is that the universe and our very existence is extraordinary. The world filled with wondrous things still undiscovered. It seems to be important for our psychic health to explore these issues and take us beyond the mundane into the creative realm.
An agnostic president combines the best of both atheism and theism: they would recognize all the possibilities and empathize with the faithful, while at the same time focusing on the realities of human existence and acting for the common good. Unfortunately, it seems most dogmatic Americans are leery of the "unfaithful" and are not ready for an agnostic leader anytime in the near future.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Frank Rich on race in race
My Dad and I were talking recently about the results from the Democratic primary the other day. He made the point, that I had heard before, that Latinos didn't appear willing to vote for a black candidate. I didn't mention it at the time, but it seemed an unscientific and stereotypical position. I stumbled across this Frank Rich article that put a little more context into how race has become an ugly undercurrent in the battle for the Democratic parties nomination. Not a good sign...
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Jericho - worth watching!
I was spinning through the channels after the NFC Championship game a few weeks back and stumbled right onto the opening credits for a CBS series called Jericho. It was being shown back-to-back on one of the HD channels, and halfway through the first hour, I was completely sucked in. The premise is relatively straight-forward in a "The Day After" sort of way - a small town in Kansas - the town of Jericho - sees a mushroom cloud far over the mountains, from the direction of Denver. From there, the story quickly becomes one about the unknown, all the unknowns you've probably never imagined and may prefer not to. The "what if" factor of this show is tremendous, and the folks that work on it are very talented - great crew, great writing, great production values - good drama all the way around. We've had some great family conversations talking about the Cold War, civil defense, and the world we live in today as a result of this provocative show.The series was canceled after the first season, but through an extraordinarily passionate response by the fans, CBS agreed to bring it back. Now they need viewers to keep it going. You can catch episodes at CBS here, or you can rent it at Netflix. In all cases, I urge you to take a look - it's worth a shot.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Jon Stewart catches more than just the soundbite on Romney's withdrawl announcement
As Stewart points out, was this speech pulled from a Conservative MadLib book? You decide...
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Hope in dark times
While I'm starting to come to grips with the possibility that Obama will not get the nomination, and starting to better understand that a Clinton nomination will be truly historic, I'm starting to get a sad and empty feeling about how I will support her. I think that Clinton is an amazing individual; bright and talented, knowledgeable and engaged and such an upgrade from the Usurper that it is hard not to want to work for her, should she get the nomination. The shrill and emotional response of the "Stop Hillary Now" folks, who have made no real case against her, virtually drool at the thought of slitting her political throat. And the opportunity to stand and do battle against that might be the highlight of my own small political life.
The Usurper's stolen presidency has been chocked full of mistakes, both large and small, both national and international. But the epic and defining moment of this administration, brought on by the attacks, is the war on extremism. Now, as extremist themselves, their plan for a new American Century, drawn up in 1997 as a roadmap for American Hegemony throughout the 21st century, was exactly the opposite of what we, everyone, actually needed.
I cry a little when I think of the headlines in Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Madrid, Beijing, London and other international newspapers on September 12th, 2001. The right American leader would have seized on that moment for what it really was - a moment when every oar in the water was at your service and all you had to do was make the call. Our leaders call, typically American in the worse sense of that word, was "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists." What a sad little man; what a horrible time to have the Usurper in the driver's seat.
Anyway, I'm rambling, which means that I'll likely drive back here to revisit this rant and clean it up a bit. My point was that in thinking about Obama, and what his presidency would bring, I couldn't help think that perhaps its not too late. Perhaps all is not lost. Perhaps the right leader can still turn around the horrid decisions of the Usurper and put America back on its feet in a real fight against extremism, both at home and abroad. It's intersting to see the children of revered historical figures line up behind him... I'm not sure what it means, but I know that inspiration is the most commonly overlooked aspect of a leader. For the challenges we face today, I suspect it may be the most important.
Where Would Obama Take the Nation?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
Posted on February 6, 2008, Printed on February 6, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/76116/
Among the recent flood of celebrity endorsements, one that has received little attention came in a Washington Post op-ed by President Dwight Eisenhower's granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, explaining why she's backing Barack Obama.
Her principal argument was that she believed Obama could help this generation of Americans pull together to address worsening problems and "leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found," like her grandfather's generation did.
But Susan Eisenhower also recalled her grandfather's great insight, the warning in his farewell address about the danger looming from the "military-industrial complex" and the potential that democracy might become the "insolvent phantom of tomorrow." [Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2008]
When combined with the endorsements of President John F. Kennedy's daughter Caroline and his surviving brother Edward Kennedy, this Eisenhower support suggests that heirs to leaders from that earlier era see something in Obama that gives them hope that he can get the United States back on track with an earlier vision of America.
In Obama's rhetoric, there are echoes of both Eisenhower's cautionary advice and Kennedy's famous speech at American University on June 10, 1963, when the President spoke about "the most important topic on earth: world peace."
Kennedy continued: "What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.
"I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women -- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."
While recognizing the daunting challenges then presented by the Soviet Union, Kennedy went on to say: "So, let us not be blind to our differences. But let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. ...
"For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
Ending a War Mindset
Of the five remaining major candidates for President, only Obama seems to offer that kind of direction for resolving disputes through negotiations, not ultimatums.
In the Jan. 31 debate in Los Angeles, he not only criticized Hillary Clinton's vote authorizing George W. Bush to invade Iraq but he disputed the critique now prevalent in opinion circles of Washington, that the war was a good idea, just poorly executed.
"I don't want to just end the war (in Iraq), but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place," Obama said.
The Illinois senator apparently was referring to his readiness to hold discussions with U.S. enemies without preconditions, a position that Clinton has called naïve and a sign of his inexperience.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the leading contenders -- John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee -- are competing over how enthusiastically to embrace Bush's Iraq War and how lavishly to finance the Pentagon and its many military contractors.
The Republicans are advocating locking in military spending at four percent of the gross domestic product or higher, essentially guaranteeing that Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" will remain a well-financed fixture in American politics.
The four-percent-or-higher sum is roughly the amount that President Bush is recommending for the next fiscal year, which when expressed in dollars and adjusted for inflation is the highest military spending since World War II. [NYT, Feb. 4, 2008]
Obama is the only major candidate left in the race who sounds like he would even contemplate changing this dynamic, by negotiating with enemies and looking for ways to avoid the bellicosity of the Bush years.
Constitutional Vision
Obama also may have the most sophisticated understanding of the U.S. Constitution and how the Founders structured this complex system of checks and balances to protect individual liberties and to compel reasoned debate.
A Harvard-educated lawyer who has lectured on the Constitution, Obama devoted a chapter in his memoir The Audacity of Hope to a discussion of how constitutional principles apply to today's political challenges.
In the chapter, Obama doesn't do what many politicians do, cite the Constitution to support some favored position. He views the Constitution instead as an ingenious device that compels debate and compromise, while protecting individual liberties.
"The answer I settle on -- which is by no means original to me -- requires a shift in metaphors, one that sees our democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be had," Obama writes.
"The genius of Madison's design is not that it provides us a fixed blueprint for action, the way a draftsman plots a building's construction. It provides us with a framework and with rules, but fidelity to these rules will not guarantee a just society or assure agreement on what's right. It won't tell us whether abortion is good or bad, a decision for a woman to make or a decision for a legislature. Nor will it tell us whether school prayer is better than no prayer at all.
"What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery -- its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights -- are designed to force us into a conversation, a 'deliberative democracy' in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent.
"Because power in our government is so diffuse, the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds; it challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and highly fallible."
Obama continues: "The historical record supports such a view. After all, if there was one impulse shared by all the Founders, it was a rejection of all forms of absolute authority, whether the king, the theocrat, the general, the oligarch, the dictator, the majority, or anyone else who claims to make choices for us. ...
"It's not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or 'ism,' any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad.
"The Founders may have trusted in God, but true to the Enlightenment spirit, they also trusted in the minds and senses that God had given them. They were suspicious of abstractions and liked asking questions, which is why at every turn in our early history, theory yielded to fact and necessity."
Kumbayah?
While some Democrats mock Obama for the naivety of his "Kubayah" goal of bringing sides together, his thinking is infused by this view of the Constitution.
Obama acknowledges that his constitutional analysis seems "to champion compromise, modesty, and muddling through; to justify logrolling, deal-making, self-interest, pork barrels, paralysis, and inefficiency -- all the sausage-making that no one wants to see and that editorialists throughout our history have often labeled as corrupt.
"And yet I think we make a mistake in assuming that democratic deliberation requires abandonment of our highest ideals, or of a commitment to the common good. ... For most of our history it has encouraged the very process of information gathering, analysis, and argument that allows us to make better, if not perfect, choices, not only about the means to our ends but also about the ends themselves. ...
"In sum, the Constitution envisions a road map by which we marry passion to reason, the ideal of individual freedom to the demands of community. And the amazing thing is that it's worked."
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and manages to gain the White House, the American people would be getting a President with a subtle grasp of the nation's founding document.
That would be in stark contrast to Bush, who claims, in effect, that the 9/11 attacks gave him unlimited powers to suspend the Constitution and its concept of inalienable rights for the duration of the open-ended "war on terror." [For details, see our book, Neck Deep.]
It is less clear how the other candidates feel about Bush's expansive presidential powers. The Constitution has not become a significant issue in the dozens of debates -- although the Republican contenders have generally endorsed Bush's actions and his choices for Supreme Court justices and the Democrats have been more critical.
Truth Commission
Another issue that mostly has remained outside the frame of the presidential debate is the question of releasing historical records from both the Cold War and the more recent era of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, from the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979 to the Iraq War.
Reliable information about this history would be crucial both for fulfilling the Eisenhower-Kennedy vision of reducing the power of the war-makers and for understanding the secret relationships that developed between America's political-business elites and the countries of the Middle East.
When taking office in 1993 -- as the first President elected after the end of the Cold War -- Bill Clinton had a unique opportunity to create "a truth and reconciliation commission" to give the American people this history. But he viewed the potential battles over the past as a distraction from fights he planned over his domestic agenda for the future.
Upon succeeding Clinton in January 2001, George W. Bush derailed laws that would have required the swift release of historical records, including those from the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
After 9/11, Bush expanded those secrecy provisions, essentially giving to former Presidents, Vice Presidents and their descendents permanent control over historical records relating to foreign policy and similar sensitive issues.
In other words, at some future date, Jenna Bush might have control over 20 years of American history, from her grandfather's 12 years in office and her father's eight.
On this front, it's unclear what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would do if one of them becomes President. From the record of her husband -- and her own tendency toward secrecy -- it might be expected that Sen. Clinton would be less likely to open up government files than Obama would be.
But one of the questions that someone might put to Sen. Obama during the campaign is whether his eloquent statements about how the Founders asked questions and valued facts would extend to appointing a truth commission for the United States.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book is Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/76116/
The Usurper's stolen presidency has been chocked full of mistakes, both large and small, both national and international. But the epic and defining moment of this administration, brought on by the attacks, is the war on extremism. Now, as extremist themselves, their plan for a new American Century, drawn up in 1997 as a roadmap for American Hegemony throughout the 21st century, was exactly the opposite of what we, everyone, actually needed.
I cry a little when I think of the headlines in Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Madrid, Beijing, London and other international newspapers on September 12th, 2001. The right American leader would have seized on that moment for what it really was - a moment when every oar in the water was at your service and all you had to do was make the call. Our leaders call, typically American in the worse sense of that word, was "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists." What a sad little man; what a horrible time to have the Usurper in the driver's seat.
Anyway, I'm rambling, which means that I'll likely drive back here to revisit this rant and clean it up a bit. My point was that in thinking about Obama, and what his presidency would bring, I couldn't help think that perhaps its not too late. Perhaps all is not lost. Perhaps the right leader can still turn around the horrid decisions of the Usurper and put America back on its feet in a real fight against extremism, both at home and abroad. It's intersting to see the children of revered historical figures line up behind him... I'm not sure what it means, but I know that inspiration is the most commonly overlooked aspect of a leader. For the challenges we face today, I suspect it may be the most important.
Where Would Obama Take the Nation?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
Posted on February 6, 2008, Printed on February 6, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/76116/
Among the recent flood of celebrity endorsements, one that has received little attention came in a Washington Post op-ed by President Dwight Eisenhower's granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, explaining why she's backing Barack Obama.
Her principal argument was that she believed Obama could help this generation of Americans pull together to address worsening problems and "leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found," like her grandfather's generation did.
But Susan Eisenhower also recalled her grandfather's great insight, the warning in his farewell address about the danger looming from the "military-industrial complex" and the potential that democracy might become the "insolvent phantom of tomorrow." [Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2008]
When combined with the endorsements of President John F. Kennedy's daughter Caroline and his surviving brother Edward Kennedy, this Eisenhower support suggests that heirs to leaders from that earlier era see something in Obama that gives them hope that he can get the United States back on track with an earlier vision of America.
In Obama's rhetoric, there are echoes of both Eisenhower's cautionary advice and Kennedy's famous speech at American University on June 10, 1963, when the President spoke about "the most important topic on earth: world peace."
Kennedy continued: "What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.
"I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women -- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."
While recognizing the daunting challenges then presented by the Soviet Union, Kennedy went on to say: "So, let us not be blind to our differences. But let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. ...
"For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
Ending a War Mindset
Of the five remaining major candidates for President, only Obama seems to offer that kind of direction for resolving disputes through negotiations, not ultimatums.
In the Jan. 31 debate in Los Angeles, he not only criticized Hillary Clinton's vote authorizing George W. Bush to invade Iraq but he disputed the critique now prevalent in opinion circles of Washington, that the war was a good idea, just poorly executed.
"I don't want to just end the war (in Iraq), but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place," Obama said.
The Illinois senator apparently was referring to his readiness to hold discussions with U.S. enemies without preconditions, a position that Clinton has called naïve and a sign of his inexperience.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the leading contenders -- John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee -- are competing over how enthusiastically to embrace Bush's Iraq War and how lavishly to finance the Pentagon and its many military contractors.
The Republicans are advocating locking in military spending at four percent of the gross domestic product or higher, essentially guaranteeing that Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" will remain a well-financed fixture in American politics.
The four-percent-or-higher sum is roughly the amount that President Bush is recommending for the next fiscal year, which when expressed in dollars and adjusted for inflation is the highest military spending since World War II. [NYT, Feb. 4, 2008]
Obama is the only major candidate left in the race who sounds like he would even contemplate changing this dynamic, by negotiating with enemies and looking for ways to avoid the bellicosity of the Bush years.
Constitutional Vision
Obama also may have the most sophisticated understanding of the U.S. Constitution and how the Founders structured this complex system of checks and balances to protect individual liberties and to compel reasoned debate.
A Harvard-educated lawyer who has lectured on the Constitution, Obama devoted a chapter in his memoir The Audacity of Hope to a discussion of how constitutional principles apply to today's political challenges.
In the chapter, Obama doesn't do what many politicians do, cite the Constitution to support some favored position. He views the Constitution instead as an ingenious device that compels debate and compromise, while protecting individual liberties.
"The answer I settle on -- which is by no means original to me -- requires a shift in metaphors, one that sees our democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be had," Obama writes.
"The genius of Madison's design is not that it provides us a fixed blueprint for action, the way a draftsman plots a building's construction. It provides us with a framework and with rules, but fidelity to these rules will not guarantee a just society or assure agreement on what's right. It won't tell us whether abortion is good or bad, a decision for a woman to make or a decision for a legislature. Nor will it tell us whether school prayer is better than no prayer at all.
"What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery -- its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights -- are designed to force us into a conversation, a 'deliberative democracy' in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent.
"Because power in our government is so diffuse, the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds; it challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and highly fallible."
Obama continues: "The historical record supports such a view. After all, if there was one impulse shared by all the Founders, it was a rejection of all forms of absolute authority, whether the king, the theocrat, the general, the oligarch, the dictator, the majority, or anyone else who claims to make choices for us. ...
"It's not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or 'ism,' any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad.
"The Founders may have trusted in God, but true to the Enlightenment spirit, they also trusted in the minds and senses that God had given them. They were suspicious of abstractions and liked asking questions, which is why at every turn in our early history, theory yielded to fact and necessity."
Kumbayah?
While some Democrats mock Obama for the naivety of his "Kubayah" goal of bringing sides together, his thinking is infused by this view of the Constitution.
Obama acknowledges that his constitutional analysis seems "to champion compromise, modesty, and muddling through; to justify logrolling, deal-making, self-interest, pork barrels, paralysis, and inefficiency -- all the sausage-making that no one wants to see and that editorialists throughout our history have often labeled as corrupt.
"And yet I think we make a mistake in assuming that democratic deliberation requires abandonment of our highest ideals, or of a commitment to the common good. ... For most of our history it has encouraged the very process of information gathering, analysis, and argument that allows us to make better, if not perfect, choices, not only about the means to our ends but also about the ends themselves. ...
"In sum, the Constitution envisions a road map by which we marry passion to reason, the ideal of individual freedom to the demands of community. And the amazing thing is that it's worked."
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and manages to gain the White House, the American people would be getting a President with a subtle grasp of the nation's founding document.
That would be in stark contrast to Bush, who claims, in effect, that the 9/11 attacks gave him unlimited powers to suspend the Constitution and its concept of inalienable rights for the duration of the open-ended "war on terror." [For details, see our book, Neck Deep.]
It is less clear how the other candidates feel about Bush's expansive presidential powers. The Constitution has not become a significant issue in the dozens of debates -- although the Republican contenders have generally endorsed Bush's actions and his choices for Supreme Court justices and the Democrats have been more critical.
Truth Commission
Another issue that mostly has remained outside the frame of the presidential debate is the question of releasing historical records from both the Cold War and the more recent era of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, from the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979 to the Iraq War.
Reliable information about this history would be crucial both for fulfilling the Eisenhower-Kennedy vision of reducing the power of the war-makers and for understanding the secret relationships that developed between America's political-business elites and the countries of the Middle East.
When taking office in 1993 -- as the first President elected after the end of the Cold War -- Bill Clinton had a unique opportunity to create "a truth and reconciliation commission" to give the American people this history. But he viewed the potential battles over the past as a distraction from fights he planned over his domestic agenda for the future.
Upon succeeding Clinton in January 2001, George W. Bush derailed laws that would have required the swift release of historical records, including those from the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
After 9/11, Bush expanded those secrecy provisions, essentially giving to former Presidents, Vice Presidents and their descendents permanent control over historical records relating to foreign policy and similar sensitive issues.
In other words, at some future date, Jenna Bush might have control over 20 years of American history, from her grandfather's 12 years in office and her father's eight.
On this front, it's unclear what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would do if one of them becomes President. From the record of her husband -- and her own tendency toward secrecy -- it might be expected that Sen. Clinton would be less likely to open up government files than Obama would be.
But one of the questions that someone might put to Sen. Obama during the campaign is whether his eloquent statements about how the Founders asked questions and valued facts would extend to appointing a truth commission for the United States.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book is Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/76116/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)