Huckabee and Us

This is not about Mike Huckabee. It is about us. It is about you and me and all of us who will next November choose the President of these United States.

Mike Huckabee says openly, in public and in print, that if he were President he would address the problem of illegal immigration by first sealing our borders (not easily done, and enormously expensive, but possible), and then deporting an estimated 12 to 15 million people. On his official website Huckabee says that he would send them all back home, to get in line with everyone else wanting to come here. He would first invite people to voluntarily leave.. And then he would round the rest up. His "Secure America Plan" states, "Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years." (Secure America Plan, Point 3 - "Prevent Amnesty")

Focus, if you will, on that single word "caught." Now, let’s get this right: this man who wants to make decisions about life and death for millions of people as the leader of the most powerful nation in history seriously thinks that, a.) millions of people would voluntarily leave homes, families, jobs, their hopes for their children – voluntarily, I say – to go back to their home country where they have no homes or jobs or futures, or, b.) our local police departments or national guard or armed forces (some of whom are themselves undocumented immigrants) will search out, arrest, and incarcerate millions of people. Millions. This by armed forces and local police departments already stretched to the breaking point, and with a national debt off the charts. This is what he is seriously advocating.

Try to envision what such a project would look like, even here in Oshkosh. Can you imagine the trauma, the human suffering, the violence, the division, and the expense engendered by such an effort? Mr. Huckabee apparently can’t. He thinks he could round up 12 million people and send them home, without, presumably, much trouble at all.

After these 12 million are "caught," where will they be housed while being processed – in our overcrowded prisons? In church basements perhaps? Will each one get a fair hearing . . . in what court, defended by whom? And the children . . . born in the US . . . what about these American citizens? Will we break up families? And once "home," where would all these people live? What problems would arise there with the influx of so many people?

And then there is the small matter of who will be doing all the work that these people are doing every day – harvesting our crops, packing and serving our food, cleaning our places of work and homes, and otherwise filling important gaps in our service industries. Really: who will take those jobs?

I don’t deny that immigration is an important – and thorny – issue. But as I said earlier, I am not so concerned about that issue as about the fact that a Presidential candidate can seriously propose a preposterous plan and still be in the race. Instead of being summarily dismissed from consideration, Huckabee is, for the moment at least, a "front-runner." What does that say about us?

If a candidate suggested that we solve our population problem by colonizing Mars before the end of his or her first term – an equally outrageous, impossible plan – wouldn’t he or she be rightly labeled at least as incompetent, and dismissed?

We long for politicians who will speak the truth about our very real challenges. We long for leaders who can offer solutions that are at least feasible. If we elect people who tell us just what we want to hear – never mind if it is absurd – then we will get what we deserve: leaders who lie to us because when they ran for office we weren’t smart enough to know how ridiculous their proposals were.

Respect, Yes; Fear, No

At the risk of sounding terribly naive, I dare to again respectfully (I will try, anyway) take issue with Cal Thomas in his article of December 6th ("World no longer respects, fears U.S.). I am grateful that in this piece he does not quote Scripture to support his views, nor even are there any references to faith at all. Perhaps because even he would have a hard time finding any support in the Bible or Christian tradition for what he says.

It is true that the U.S. has lost the respect of much of the world. The apparent complete collapse of any law and order in Iraq, due to the complete incompetance of the Bush administration to "win the peace" after our invasion and occupation of that country, goes a long way toward our loss of respect among other nations. Then too, inconsistancies in how we deal with the world -- now claiming to foster the growth of democracy, now supporting this or that distatorship if it serves our purposes -- doesn't win the respect of anyone. So yes, our respect-quotiant is low, and that is a terrible thing for us and the world.

But do we really want the world to fear us? Cal thinks so. He thinks that if we got tough, the world would start behaving the way we'd like. "Whatever happened to 'if you touch us, it will be the last thing you touch'?" he says, like a bully on the playground.

How much more of a bully could we be than what we have done in Iraq? "Shock and Awe" did not put the Iraqis in awe of us, nor even afraid, it seems. Who cannot look at the mess we have created there and not see the utterly folly, the total uselessness of thinking we can with our military might -- as powerful and expensive as it is, carried out by courageous and skilled warriors -- bring order, much less democracy to any nation?

The Bush administration's ability to deny reality was further demonstrated this week when they sent Donald Rumsfeld off to his retirement with fanfare and high honors for his role in the whole sordid affair. I would think that the world out there, if it was watching, seeing our honoring of the man who played such a key role in the Iraq debacle, thinks even less of us than it did. I don't think we win any respect by continuing to deny the obvious, refusing to take any responsibility for the misery we have caused, not the least of which is to our own military people and their families.

When will we stop mistaking fear -- the primary tactic of the terrorists we say we are fighting -- for diplomacy? Could it be that Jesus was on to something when he talked about loving one's enemies? Killing them doesn't seem to be working . . . . at all.

Even I Could Have Thought of That

Karen Hughes, long-time friend, confidant, and advisor to President Bush II, who managed the White House through 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq -- now the Undersecretary of State in charge of our "image" abroad -- allowed yesterday that our image is not the best, and will take "years and maybe decades" to restore it.

Really. Imagine that.

Let's see . . . we invaded two sovereign predominantly Muslim nations (one with the help of other predominantly Christian nations, and the other -- Iraq -- all by ourselves), overthrew their governments (killing as we did all this perhaps 100,000 people), installed governments we thought would be to our liking, and have remained to occupy the land -- hoping against hope that it will all turn out OK someday.

In June the Pew Research people talked to people in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkey (they are on our side, right?) and found that "less than one-third had a favorable view of us." The major reason for such a bad report? Our continued involvement in Iraq.

We thousands, tens of thousands -- millions of people world-wide -- who opposed invading Iraq said that we were pretty sure that it would, far from eradicating terrorists, fan the flames of hatred toward us and inspire thousands upon thousands of young Muslims around the world to join the jihad. Many of us said that the invasion would be the greatest recuiting tool imaginable for Al-Quaida.

The administration's own people, of course, have now reported that yes, indeed, that's what happened.

And now even Karen Hughes can see that Iraq had certain negative effects on our "image" abroad.

Did the people who laid out the war plans, pressed for this war, led us into it, sacrificing thousands of Americans, spending $400 billion (before the war we imagined $200 billion, and thought that was high) . . . did they not imagine what it would do to our "image" for "years, even decades" (I would add centuries)? Were they not bright enough to see that?

Even I had some inkling. No, I was sure of it. And I'm not that bright.

I hope someone has talked to the "Lessons Learned" desk at the White House about this. But I doubt it.

Reference: AP report, Anti-American feelings are hard to beat" the Oshkosh Northwestern, September 29, 2006

"America, Return to God?"

I recieved at church this week a 128-page magazine from "Great Commission Center International" entitled America, Return to God. I believe every church and pastor in the country was sent this -- an indication of the kind of funding backing up the effort. Edited by Thomas Wang, it includes articles by such right-wing luminaries as Francis Schaeffer, Bill Gothard, David Barton, Tim LaHaye, James Kennedy, and of course James Dobson. And lots of quotes from Presidents, and the Founding Fathers (no Mothers).

It rails against the ACLU and "liberal judges," tracing the downfall of America to 1962 when mandatory public prayers were banned in school, thus causing all manner of evil to happen, including the destruction of the family.

And all the usual evils were cited: abortion, homosexuality, liberal media, feminism, and pornography. To avert divine wrath ("It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God," they helpfully remind us, quoting from Hebrews 10:31) they recommend prayer, repentance, and purposeful, energetic political involvement. Only "the Godly" should be elected. That is, of course, only those who espouse a right-wing agenda.

What is most striking and profoundly sad about this "restoration" movement within Fundamentalist Christianity is that in the entire 128 pages there is not a mention of the horrific war in Iraq -- the 10s of thousands killed, the 100s of thousands of people around the world who hate us for that war, the massive debt that war is incurring and the accompanying cuts to social programs that war is causing. No word of judgment on a nation that attacks another, unprovoked, on false pretenses, because of the overwhelming hubris of a few foolish, foolish men (and one woman - Ms. Rice). It's as if Iraq never happened.

The legacy of right-wing Christianity in these past ten years will be that they elected George W. Bush to office, and blessed him on his way as he waged war abroad while at home he made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Is this in any way "Christian?"

Cal Thomas: a Reflection of our Worst Nightmare

I wouldn't read Cal Thomas at all if it weren't for the fact that he identifies himself so openly and proudly with the same faith I claim as my own, namely, Christianity. I know pretty much what he'll say about a given issue, and I know that I will nearly always disagree with him politically; and besides that he states his opinions with such a mean-spirited sarcasm that he's depressing to read. But his religious affiliation keeps coming back at me, and I suppose I think I should know what such a prominent spokesperson of the far right is saying, right out loud in front of God and everyone else.

Today's article -- Jury Lets Terrorist Claim Victory -- deserves some comment. He thinks (no surprise here) that Moussaoui should be executed for not divulging information that could have thwarted 9/11. Living under the Old Testament law as he does (and a surprising number of Christian Fundamentalists do) Thomas follows this logic: "If human life has the highest value . . .then the only way to validate its worth is to deprive one who takes it of his or her own life." "An eye for an eye," that is. It would follow that if a person took, say two lives, society in order to be just would have to take two lives . . . the killer's, and perhaps his/her spouse. If three lives, then we could proceed on to a child, or lacking that, a parent.

There are societies, as I understand it, who do in fact practice such a system, with families taking it upon themselves to "settle the score" with an offender -- someone who has "dishonored" the family. Perhaps a "more civilized" approach is to have the State avenge the death or deaths. But I doubt it.

Thomas claims that "America's soft underpinnings" were exposed when the jury sentenced Moussaoui to a mere lifetime of solitary confinement, rather than hang him, or shoot him, or electocute him, or inject him. To the contrary, the mark of a more humane society is that it can refuse to return evil for evil.

I shudder to think what our nation would look like if it were ruled by those who espouse the views of Cal Thomas. We might be more orderly -- for fear of being attacked by the morals police -- but we surely would not be a free society. My worst nightmare is that Christian Fundamentalists have their way with us, inflicting their rules on the rest of us. This is their agenda. And it is an agenda so far from what I see in Jesus that I wonder if my faith and Thomas' faith has anything at all in common, besides the name.