Now, Beck rarely know what he is talking about with respect to any subject, and this is no exception. Turns out even we Mormons talk about social justice every now and then:
On a different topic, I should admit that I often disagree with conservative columnist David Brooks, particularly about health care. But he seems to have a grasp of who President Obama actually is, and who he is not. He writes:Kent P. Jackson, associate dean of religion at Brigham Young University, said in an interview: “My own experience as a believing Latter-day Saint over the course of 60 years is that I have seen social justice in practice in every L.D.S. congregation I’ve been in. People endeavor with all of our frailties and shortcomings to love one another and to lift up other people. So if that’s Beck’s definition of social justice, he and I are definitely not on the same team.”
Philip Barlow, the Arrington Professor of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University, said: “One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it’s a vast tract on social justice. It’s ubiquitous in the Book of Mormon to have the prophetic figures, much like in the Hebrew Bible, calling out those who are insensitive to injustices. A lot of Latter-day Saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church.”
Readers of this column know that I’ve been critical on health care and other matters. Obama is four clicks to my left on most issues....But he is still the most realistic and reasonable major player in Washington.Very few people on either the right or left seem to understand the sort of president we've got. Bravo to Brooks for cutting through the crap.Liberals are wrong to call him weak and indecisive. He’s just not always pursuing their aims. Conservatives are wrong to call him a big-government liberal. That’s just not a fair reading of his agenda.
Take health care. He has pushed a program that expands coverage, creates exchanges and moderately tinkers with the status quo — too moderately to restrain costs. To call this an orthodox liberal plan is an absurdity. It more closely resembles the center-left deals cut by Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, or Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney....
Take education. Obama has taken on a Democratic constituency, the teachers’ unions, with a courage not seen since George W. Bush took on the anti-immigration forces in his own party. In a remarkable speech on March 1, he went straight at the guardians of the status quo by calling for the removal of failing teachers in failing schools. Obama has been the most determined education reformer in the modern presidency.
Take foreign policy. To the consternation of many on the left, Obama has continued about 80 percent of the policies of the second Bush term. Obama conducted a long review of the Afghan policy and was genuinely moved by the evidence. He has emerged as a liberal hawk, pursuing victory in Iraq and adopting an Afghan surge that has already utterly transformed the momentum in that war. The Taliban is now in retreat and its leaders are being assassinated or captured at a steady rate....
In a sensible country, people would see Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism. In a sensible country, Obama would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed. But we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality, fundamentally misunderstanding the man in the Oval Office.
3 comments:
Hello good professor and friend,
I was surfing the web -- which essentially amounts to looking at Nollie's web history -- and came across the Warnick blog. Good reading. I'm glad that you're reading David Brooks, my favorite talking head.
Nollie recently checked out Mitt Romney's new book. I can't help but think that its Romney's version of "Profiles in Courage." Anyway, the first chapter is essentially an attack on Obama's foreign policy -- not necessarily on the policies themselves to be precise -- but more on the rhetoric. Romney argues that Obama's sometimes apologetic and conciliatory tone in speeches is a dramatic about-face for both Republican and Democratic Presidents. For example, he quoted this statement by Obama: "In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold."
The question is how the rhetoric translates into policy, because today some nations do dominate others and are likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future (e.g., Israel & Palestine). On the one hand, one of my largest criticisms of the Bush administration was its unilateralism, especially in regard to the treatment of allies. I appreciate Obama's willingness to engage other nations. However, I also take some comfort in knowing that our military advantage is substantial. In other words, I believe we can from a military perspective dominate other nations -- and I think we should continue to do so. In other words, I appreciate the ability of the United States Air Force to blow up Iranian nuclear facilities should the need arise. Ultimately, my interpretation of Obama's comments are that as we become increasingly interconnected (especially economically), the costs associated with aggressive, self-serving military action will become increasingly and prohibitively expensive. If this is his point, I agree with him theoretically. However, is this the reality today and in the near future?
Ha!--When Craig and I were looking for a new church in New England, our number one criteria was a commitment to social justice. We specifically sought a church that was committed to making the world a better place for others, not just their own members. For us, the Christian mission is about bringing justice and care to all people, especially the most downtrodden and oppressed. I cannot fathom someone who overtly dissuades people from attending church for this very reason.
I'm not by any means going to defend everything Beck says...but...
I think everyone agrees that we all have a sacred responsibility to care for the needy and almost every church preaches this. Where the divide comes is how we accomplish social justice. Some think we should entrust the government to do this, others believe that churches and charities should.
Obviously I disagree with Beck that anyone should leave a church that mentions social justice under any context, but I think it is only fair to clarify that many people see an importance in the manner in which social justice is brought to pass.
Kyle
Post a Comment