Reality has entered the arena

Juan Williams has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Judge Obama on Performance Alone,” calling on the media to start treating President Obama fairly instead of favorably.  Williams writes,

It is neither overweening emotion nor partisanship to see King’s moral universe bending toward justice in the act of the first non-white man taking the oath of the presidency. But now that this moment has arrived, there is a question: How shall we judge our new leader?If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else—fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism—then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise. . . .To allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance.President Obama deserves no less.

Williams is right, and his point is a critically important one—even more important, perhaps, than he contends.  The sort of “affectionate if not fawning treatment from the American media” that Senator Obama received during the campaign was helpful to him as a candidate, because as a candidate he was insulated from the broader reality of the American situation.  He didn’t have to put anything on the line to deal with the challenges this country faces, nor did he have to accept responsibility for anything that went wrong, because he wasn’t in the arena where those challenges are actually faced—that fight belonged to President Bush, leaving Senator Obama free to critique from the stands without having to deal with it himself.  He had a different campaign to fight, one in which perception is what matters most, and the adulation of the media could affect that in meaningful ways to his benefit.Now, however, the situation is very different; it is now President Obama’s task to be “the man in the arena,” and he is no longer free merely to comment, criticize, and suggest—he must act, and his actions will have direct and significant consequences.  As Jennifer Rubin writes,

The economy will either improve or it won’t. President Obama will either control and focus the multiple voices in his administration and prevent too many cooks from spoiling the soup (or deadlocking the administration) or he won’t. And he will either continue George W. Bush’s record of post-9-11 U.S. safety and post-surge progress, or he won’t. Those events can only be spun so much. But unemployment rates, Dow Jones averages, al Qaeda terrorists and even Congress don’t much care whether he is the embodiment of the mainstream media’s hopes and dreams.In the end, what matters most is what the President does—and what results he achieves.

This is truth, and it means that from here on out, the media aren’t really going to be able to do Barack Obama any favors; they can do a lot to destroy a president, as they did with George W. Bush, by skewing their reporting toward bad news and spinning things in negative ways, but they can’t create good news that isn’t there, and they can’t keep bad news from getting out.  No matter how hard they try, “the MSM has to get around to reporting what everyone else knows to be the case sooner or later (as they did on Iraq).”  They can only delay that point—they cannot keep it from arriving.That being the case, the one real effect they could have by continuing to fawn over Barack Obama is to foster and feed a feeling of overconfidence in the White House—which couldn’t possibly be good for the president or his administration, and could quite possibly be fatal.  Far better for them to start asking the tough questions and digging out the hidden stories now, when there’s much less on the line.  I don’t expect them to attack President Obama the way they attacked President Bush—indeed, I’m glad they won’t; what they did to our 43rd president was dishonorable and repulsive, and I would not care to see it repeated to anyone—but they need to get back to being what they claim to be, “a proud, adversarial press speaking truth about a powerful politician and offering impartial accounts of his actions.”  As Juan Williams says, President Obama deserves no less.

As usual, score one for Mickey Kaus

who has this to say about the GOP’s mood (it’s the last item in the post):

Conservatives I’ve met in D.C. so far have been near-ebullient, not downcast or bitter. Why? a) They know how unhappy they’d be now if McCain had won; b) Obama has not fulfilled their worst fears, or even second-to-worst fears; c) now they can be an honest, straight-up opposition.

Oddly enough, b) might be the least important of the three.  a) and c) go together, really; the shots from Democrats that John McCain represented “a Bush third term” weren’t fair on the whole, but there is one respect in which he would have been a continuation of the Bush administration:  it would have been four more years, for conservatives, of gritting teeth and biting tongues on a great many policies (more than with President Bush, I’m sure) so as not to undermine him on the few key ones on which we agree.  Valued commenter and colleague Doug Hagler has argued repeatedly in his comments here that Republicans don’t believe in free markets any more than the Democrats do, and that there is no party of small government; that isn’t true on a grassroots level, or among the more junior leaders of the party, but it’s been true on a national level for quite some time, and this is a lot of the reason.  The GOP hasn’t put up an economic conservative as its presidential candidate since Reagan (though George H. W. Bush talked the talk long enough to get elected); and while the party won both houses of Congress on a conservative platform in 1994, power and its seductions bent the congressional GOP leadership away from that in time.  Conservatives in the party, in order to hold fast to conservative positions, would have had to go into opposition en masse to their own party—which probably would have looked severely counterproductive at the time, since it would undoubtedly have swung the federal government as a whole to the left.  In the long run, I’m not sure it would have been counterproductive at all, but that would have been a pretty long gamble to play . . . and might very likely have cost those conservatives their seats.  Would it have been worth it anyway to preserve a greater integrity to a conservative opposition?  Perhaps, but I doubt we’ll ever be able to say for sure.In any case, as Kaus notes, that particular problem has now been solved (in the most drastic fashion possible); the party has been purged to a considerable extent, and exiled to the outer darkness for its misdeeds.  That means it’s a long road back, but as conservatives, we can be glad simply to be on the road back—it has at least turned around—and to have a new generation of leaders rising up, folks like Governors Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, and Representatives Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, to guide us on the way.  It means it’s the ideal time to begin to make the GOP a conservative party once again—and perhaps, this time, to learn from the mistakes of the last time, and keep it one.

The speechwriters’-eye view

Hugh Hewitt linked today to a blog that was started just this month by former White House speechwriters—specifically, the White House Writers Group, founded by former Reagan/Bush speechwriters, and the West Wing Writers, a group of former Clinton speechwriters—called Podium Pundits; their stated purpose is “to analyze and comment on major speeches, messaging strategy, and the business of communications.”  This looks like it’s going to be a fascinating blog, and I’ve added it to the blogroll.  Bonus points for posting the pictures of the year so far:

Channeling Dubya

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us,
and we will defeat you.—President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009Fine words, and very familiar-sounding, somehow.  Here’s hoping he has the guts to stand to the mark behind them the way his immediate predecessor did.(Great word, “predecessor”; literally, “the one who died before you.”  Good metaphor for the presidency, really.)

Reasons to be proud

David Horowitz has an excellent piece on the inauguration up on FrontPage Magazine. I especially like his conclusion:

All over the country Americans have invested their hopes in Obama’s ability to pull his country together to face its challenges. Among these Americans are millions—most likely tens of millions—who have never identified with their government before, who felt “outside” the system they regarded as run by elites, who ascribed its economic troubles to the greedy rich, who bought the Jackson-Sharpton canard that America was a racist society and they were locked out, who would have scorned the term “patriot” as a compromise with such evils, and who turned their backs on America’s wars.But today celebrating their new president are millions of Americans who never would have dreamed of celebrating their president before. Millions of Americans—visible in all their racial and ethnic variety at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday—have begun to feel a patriotic stirring because they see in this First Family a reflection of themselves.The change is still symbolic and may not last. A lot depends on what President Obama will do, which is not a small question given how little is still known about this man and how little tested he remains. Some of this patriotism may be of the sunshine variety—in for a day or a season, when the costs are not great. Or more cynically: in to show that their hatred for America is really just another form of political “dissent.” Yet whatever the nature of these changes they cannot for now be discounted. Consider: When President Obama commits this nation to war against the Islamic terrorists, as he already has in Afghanistan, he will take millions of previously alienated and disaffected Americans with him, and they will support our troops in a way that most of his party has refused to support them until now. When another liberal, Bill Clinton went to war from the air, there was no anti-war movement in the streets or in his party’s ranks to oppose him. That is an encouraging fact for us in the dangerous world we confront.If it seems unfair that Barack Obama should be the source of a new patriotism—albeit of untested mettle—life is unfair. If the Obama future is uncertain and fraught with unseen perils, conservatives can deal with those perils as they come. What matters today is that many Americans have begun to join their country’s cause, and conservatives should celebrate that fact and encourage it. What matters now is that the American dream with its enormous power to inspire at home and abroad is back in business. What it means is that the race card has been played out and America can once again see itself—and be seen—for what it is: a land of incomparable opportunity, incomparable tolerance, and justice for all. Conservative values—individual responsibility, equal opportunity, racial and ethnic pluralism, and family—are now symbolically embedded in the American White House. As a result, a great dimension of American power has been restored. Will these values be supported, strengthened, put into practice? It is up to us to see that they are.

HT:  Paul Mirengoff

The future of newspapers

I think most folks who follow the news are aware that newspapers are in trouble, as stories multiply about the financial problems at papers like the Chicago Tribune, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and of course the Grey Lady, the New York Times.  Yesterday, Geoff Baker, who covers the Seattle Mariners as the beat writer for the Seattle Times, reflected on this situation on his blog.  I think he has some worthwhile things to say; I believe he’s right that online content offers newspapers the opportunity to do far more than they can with their print editions. I particularly appreciate (and agree with) his comment that “the first step is for all reporters who still have jobs to start practising journalism to a far greater degree than they do.”  He’s more optimistic than I am about finding a financial model that will work to keep our newspapers afloat, but in the end, I think he’s right that “this Darwinian exercise” will lead not to the extinction of newspapers but to their reinvigoration; we rely too much on the work they do for them to disappear.

The politics of gratitude

He was never the candidate I supported, or the president I would have chosen; I think he’s gotten a raw deal and that he’ll be treated much better by history than he was by the media, but there are many legitimate criticisms that will remain.  Some of those are policy disagreements, matters of liberals and conservatives having different ideas, but many of them aren’t, especially as regards his management style and personnel judgment.Nevertheless, I thank George W. Bush for his eight years of service as our president, just as I thank Barack Obama for now taking up that heavy burden—and just as I will thank him when the time comes for him to lay it down in turn.  I disagreed with much that President Bush did; I fully expect to disagree with far, far more that President Obama does; but just because they do not serve in the way I would prefer does not mean I’m not grateful for their willingness to serve.  Indeed, barring actual corruption, if you have to agree with everything a politician does in order to be grateful for their service, if you can only honor politicians who think the way you do and support the policies you want, then there’s something wrong with you.  I mean that in complete sincerity.This is now something conservatives need to bear in mind.  We’ve dealt with eight years of “He’s not my president” and similarly dishonorable talk from liberals; for the sake of the Republic and the health of our own souls, we cannot afford to return ill for ill.  Just because we didn’t get what we want doesn’t mean we have the right to declare Barack Obama “not our president,” or to belittle him, or spread lies about him, or treat him with contempt, or dismiss him as unworthy, or run down his character, or any of the other things we’ve watched liberals do to George W. Bush for the last two terms.  He is our president—Lord willing, the only one we’re going to have for the next four years—and for the good of our country, we need to support him as best we can.  Not only would it be sick and wrong for conservatives to be as evil to him (or anywhere close) as his supporters were to President Bush, it’s a luxury we can’t afford.  We need to be better than that.  My prayer is that we will continue to be.HT for the picture:  Benjamin P. Glaser

Listen to the dream

My children are in school today; our school district is using holidays as snow days, which doesn’t exactly seem kosher to me. So, as a tribute but also as a bit of a protest, I thought I’d post Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech this morning; this is the whole thing, not just the famous peroration, and if you’ve never heard it, it’s more than worth the time to listen. For that matter, even if you have heard it, it’s still more than worth the time.

Thanks, Hap

The last couple weeks have been pretty crazy; I’m hoping that things will clear out a bit for the next couple.  We had a big meeting today at the church which took a lot of time and mental energy for preparation, and which I think went fairly well; we’re dealing with the big questions of identity and vision, working towards developing a ministry plan for the next 3-5 years, so there’s a lot on the line here, but I think we made a good start on it.  We just need to keep praying and thinking and trust God to lead us.If the pace does slow a little, one thing I want to do is catch back up with various blogs.  Hap, for instance, has been doing some interesting work on Psalm 119, working through the acrostic; and most recently, she has a remarkable post up titled “healing, community, and the poverty of availability.”  It’s a valuable rumination on the cost of being available to others, and why even ministry must be held in balance with the rest of life; as such, after a week like this, it’s just what I needed to read.  I commend it to your careful consideration.

The Mission to the Nations

(Isaiah 41:1-20Matthew 5:13-16)

Having made his case to his people in the passage we read last week, God now turns through his prophet to address the peoples of the world; and he does so with a trope that Isaiah seems to have been quite fond of—the court scene. We’ll see it more than once during this series. We have the summons in the first verse—the NIV doesn’t quite get the full import here: “Come before me in silence, you islands! Let the peoples renew their strength!” “Islands” here represents the peoples at the farthest edges of the known world—one of many indications, by the way, that this prophecy was given through a prophet who lived in Israel, not in Babylon; this is the language of a coastal people. “Come, all you peoples, even the most distant, and let me renew your strength.” God is offering the same gift to all the nations that he has offered to his chosen people, if they will only accept it, and so he summons them to come to him for mishpat.

Now, mishpat is the word the NIV translates “judgment” here, and that’s not really a very good translation; when we hear that, we think of passing sentence, and that’s not what this word is on about. Mishpat is another one of those loaded Old Testament words; it’s the word we usually translate “justice,” but even that doesn’t go far enough to help us understand the concept here. This isn’t just about punishing those who do wrong, or giving people what they deserve, which is what we tend to think of when we think of justice; it’s much larger than that. The Old Testament scholar Paul Hanson, who has studied the word closely, defines it as “the order of compassionate justice that God has created and upon which the wholeness of the universe depends.” It’s not just concerned with one country, or a set of laws, or even just with human beings, but with the whole world. This is because “the chaos or harmony that results from disobedience or obedience affects the entire universe . . . human history and natural phenomena alike.” Mishpat, God’s justice, is the restoration of the original created order of the universe, when “everything was right, just, whole, in accordance with God’s perfect will.”

The problem is, the nations do not have mishpat—which is both to say that they don’t act with justice, in accordance with God’s perfect will, and that they don’t have the blessing of God’s justice, they don’t experience the rightness of God’s just order, and the peace that goes with it. Thus God extends an invitation to them: if they will come to him and accept his authority, taking their proper place in the ordering of creation, bowing their heads to his justice, they will experience the blessing of that justice in the peace of God and the renewal of their strength. As Sara noted, what we’re seeing here is the same thing we see in John 3:17: God acts in the world—through Israel, through his prophets, ultimately in Jesus Christ, and then through us—not because he wants to condemn the world, but because he wants to redeem and restore it.

Of course, if he’s going to convince the nations of the reality of his offer, God must naturally prove his case; he must demonstrate to the peoples of the world as he has demonstrated to Israel and Judah that he has the power to do what he promises to do. Enter, then, for the first time, the great Persian conqueror Cyrus—still unnamed, as yet; as yet, we have only the sound of his approach. “Who has stirred up one from the east,” he asks, “whom Righteousness calls to his service? He hands nations over to him and makes him dominate kings.” We get a picture of the unstoppable swiftness of Cyrus’ conquest, which we can see more clearly if we drop the “before” from verse 3: Cyrus’ armies blow through the armies of his enemies with such force that they remain unscathed, moving so swiftly that it’s as if their feet never even touch the ground. And who has made this happen? “I have,” says the Lord, “I who am the first and the last.”

In the face of this magnificent invitation, how do the nations respond? They run—not to God, but away from him, and to their idols. They see the conqueror’s approach, but instead of casting in their lot with the God who summoned him, they turn to their own gods to resist him; and so we have this picture of them encouraging each other and telling each other, “You’re doing a great job building that idol.” Once again, Isaiah makes the point that these people have to nail their idols down so that they won’t fall over, highlighting their utter powerlessness in the face of the living God.

Here, Isaiah also seems to emphasize the amount of work that goes into making an idol, both the heavy, rough work of molding and welding the thing and of forging the nails to hold it in place, and the delicate, skill-intensive work of plating it with gold; wouldn’t it be easier just to trust in God than to go to all that effort to avoid him? And if your gods are that dependent on their people for their very existence, are they really all that likely to do you any good? Consider this: where the God of Israel pronounces comfort and gives his people words of hope and assurance, the idols of the nations say nothing at all; their people are left to comfort themselves.

But though the nations fear the Lord and the approach of his conqueror, he makes it clear to his people that they have nothing to fear. “You are my servant,” he declares. “Don’t fear, for I am with you; don’t be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you—I will uphold you with my right hand. All those who oppose you will perish; though you are feeble, I will make you capable of overcoming any obstacle.” Human power failed the people of Israel and Judah time after time, because they were not a strong nation; and if we look at the history of the church, we can see that even when the church has been rich and powerful, human power has rarely done it any good, either. When the people of God act just like the world, we usually wind up getting whupped in the end (one way or another), because quite frankly, the world outguns us; but when we’re faithful to live as God wants us to live and to do what he calls us to do, it’s a very different story. For all this world’s power and all its accomplishments, as we saw last week, are utterly insignificant compared to God.

As are all the challenges with which it presents us. The picture shifts in verse 17 from weakness in the face of opposition to one of weakness in the face of adverse circumstances: the poor and helpless lost in the desert, searching desperately for water. God says, “I will cause rivers to flow where there is no water, and then springs to burst forth, until the barren desert is well-watered ground; and then out of the barren, hard-baked soil, I will raise trees for shade.” Water and shade—the two great needs for survival of anyone traveling in the desert; in the face of the adversities of life, God will provide what is necessary to deal with them, and to continue on the journey. Why? “So that they may know that the hand of the Lord has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has made it happen.” So that people will understand who is the redeemer, and who is able to provide for our needs.

And what is the point of all this? What is God’s agenda? It’s to reach the nations. It’s the purpose for which he chose Israel as his servant to begin with, that they might draw the nations to him, and it’s the broader purpose behind his deliverance of his people from exile. Yes, he’s doing it for their sake, but he’s also doing it to demonstrate his power to the nations. This is why he announces the coming of Cyrus the conqueror, and part of the reason he proclaims that Israel will return to their land—something which just didn’t happen; peoples who were conquered and dragged away disappeared from history. The fact that Israel reappeared on the world scene in a meaningful way was an unusual event, to say the least. These promises God is making to his people, when they are fulfilled, are in part to give support to their assertion that their God is not as the gods of the nations, but that they alone worship the Lord and Creator of the Universe; for who else could possibly have the power to do such things? Certainly not Marduk of the Babylonians, or Ishtar of the Assyrians, both of which disappeared from history when the empires who worshiped them fell to the armies of the conqueror. Only the one true God can do what Isaiah here promises he will do.

The circumstances have changed, but God’s purpose has not: he still seeks to draw all the nations to himself, and he still seeks to use his people to do so; which means that this mission is, in part, ours. When Israel would not be a light to the nations, he sent his Son to be the light of the world, and his Son called us in turn to be the lamp to hold his light—so that when the world looks at us, they would see him shining through us. He made us the salt of the earth—and remember what we said about salt a few weeks ago: it’s always active, affecting anything it touches, purifying, preserving, flavoring—melting ice—and, yes, sometimes irritating. He has sent us out to be carriers of his grace and truth and love, to bring those into contact with everyone we meet, by the things we say and the way we say them and how we live our lives. And if we will go out as he sends us, though we will know difficulties, we will see God’s victory in the end.