John McCain in a nutshell

can be found, as Kevin McCullough points out, in the conclusion to his acceptance speech:

Long ago, something unusual happened to me that taught me the most valuable lesson of my life. I was blessed by misfortune. I mean that sincerely. I was blessed because I served in the company of heroes, and I witnessed a thousand acts of courage, compassion and love. On an October morning, in the Gulf of Tonkin, I prepared for my 23rd mission over North Vietnam. I hadn’t any worry I wouldn’t come back safe and sound. I thought I was tougher than anyone. I was pretty independent then, too. I liked to bend a few rules, and pick a few fights for the fun of it. But I did it for my own pleasure; my own pride. I didn’t think there was a cause more important than me. Then I found myself falling toward the middle of a small lake in the city of Hanoi, with two broken arms, a broken leg, and an angry crowd waiting to greet me. I was dumped in a dark cell, and left to die. I didn’t feel so tough anymore. When they discovered my father was an admiral, they took me to a hospital. They couldn’t set my bones properly, so they just slapped a cast on me. When I didn’t get better, and was down to about a hundred pounds, they put me in a cell with two other Americans. I couldn’t do anything. I couldn’t even feed myself. They did it for me. I was beginning to learn the limits of my selfish independence. Those men saved my life. I was in solitary confinement when my captors offered to release me. I knew why. If I went home, they would use it as propaganda to demoralize my fellow prisoners. Our Code said we could only go home in the order of our capture, and there were men who had been shot down before me. I thought about it, though. I wasn’t in great shape, and I missed everything about America. But I turned it down. A lot of prisoners had it a lot worse than I did. I’d been mistreated before, but not as badly as many others. I always liked to strut a little after I’d been roughed up to show the other guys I was tough enough to take it. But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn’t know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door to me, my friend, Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for my country and for the men I had the honor to serve with, because every day, they fought for me. I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn’t my own man anymore. I was my country’s.I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God. If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier, because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself. I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what’s right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people. Fight for our children’s future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all. Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America. Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history. Thank you, and God bless you.

Full speech:

Palin rumors and Palin facts

I was pleased to find, today, a good comprehensive list sorting out all the things that have been said about Sarah Palin. Yes, she’s not perfect; yes, there are people who don’t like her (many of them Alaskan Republican politicians); yes, there are things to criticize about her and her record (since she, like any of the rest of us, is a sinful human being); but no, overall, the attempts to hatchet her down don’t stand. And yes, the list offers its compiler the chance for some wonderfully snarky comments.HT: The Anchoress

Pro-life ministry in an oversexed society

One of the biggest things I miss about living in Canada is the newspapers. I miss having the Vancouver Sun and the National Post show up on the step every morning; I miss the caliber of the reporting, the vigor and sense of responsibility of the political coverage, the wit and keen eye of the columnists . . . it’s a long list, which absolutely must not omit the consistently superb movie reviews of Katherine Monk. (She writes great good reviews, and even better bad ones.)I was reminded today just how much I miss them when RealClearPolitics tossed up a link to a piece by George Jonas on Sarah Palin. I’d forgotten about George Jonas, which is too bad; it’s a typically good piece on the feminist reaction to the Palin nomination. Still, I was more interested in a link in the sidebar to an article by David Frum. The article is titled “Sarah and Todd Palin and the quiet success of the pro-life movement,” but that’s not really what the article is about; the true subject of the article is, as Frum puts it, “the transformation of the pro-life movement from an unambiguously conservative force into something more complex.” It’s about the way in which the evolution of the pro-life movement and the law of unintended consequences have significantly reshaped evangelical attitudes and social conservative politics. To quote Frum’s conclusion,

The experience of the Palin family symbolizes the effect of the pro-life movement on American culture: Abortion has been made more rare; unwed motherhood has been normalized. However you feel about that outcome, it is not well-described as either left-wing or right-wing.

In saying this, Frum has captured and crystallized something of which I was aware—in my own attitudes and approach to ministry, no less than in the lives of others—but which I hadn’t consciously thought about. Put simply, when pro-life concerns cross with the concern for other issues, the tie goes to the baby. We have learned, as Frum puts it earlier in his article, that

So long as unwed parenthood is considered disgraceful, many unwed mothers will choose abortion to escape disgrace. And so, step by step, the pro-life movement has evolved to an accepting—even welcoming—attitude toward pregnancy outside marriage.

Now, that “even welcoming” bit is wrong; but otherwise, he’s right. We came face to face with the law of unintended consequences and realized that the stigma on unwed motherhood was driving abortions, and so we set it aside for the greater good; what else are crisis pregnancy centers all about?Of course, that has unintended consequences of its own; as conservatives understand, subsidizing behavior encourages that behavior, and supporting unwed mothers certainly qualifies as a subsidy, if a private-sector one, on unwed motherhood. Thus, according to Frum’s statistics, some 37% of all babies born in the US are born out of wedlock. Whether this contributes to the ongoing decline of the institution of marriage in this country, I’m really not sure—I actually tend to think not, judging from my own experience (and here, the example of the Palin family would be a bit of anecdotal support for that as well), but I could easily be wrong—but it certainly contributes to the ongoing weakening of the sense that marriage and children are supposed to go together. Which isn’t a good thing . . . but is clearly a lesser evil than abortion.But still, it isn’t a good thing, and it needs to be resisted, and counterbalanced—but without providing incentives for abortion. What I think the interplay between rates of abortion and unwed motherhood demonstrates is that promoting abstinence by “going negative” doesn’t work (a point also made, from a different angle, by Lauren Winner in her superb book Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity). We need to articulate the positive case for chastity—which, you will note, is a positive word, where “abstinence” is a negative one—and we need to do so holistically, weaving together emotional, social scientific, biological, relational, and, yes, theological arguments into a single cohesive and coherent position; we need to respond to the “elemental powers” view of sex with a greater and a higher vision, one which compellingly presents the idea that chastity is not self-deprivation, but is in fact a valuable self-discipline which leads to blessing. As churches, we need to contribute to that by moving away from the simplistic approaches to sexuality which we too often take and toward a fully-developed, fully-considered, fully biblical theology of sexuality and pleasure. “Just say no” doesn’t work, and especially not in our sex-saturated society; if we’re going to tell people they need to say “no” to something, we also have to help them understand what God is calling them to say “yes” to in its place. To do otherwise isn’t just bad theology—it’s bad ministry, and it doesn’t work.Update: Janice Shaw Crouse has an excellent column on reducing teen pregnancies and abortions.

Disappointment is no argument against Gov. Palin

I have continued to be bothered by the attitude of the folks at PowerLine toward the Palin pick. I get that they’re Minnesotans who were really hoping to see Tim Pawlenty in that slot, but I think the disappointment is skewing their perspective; they’ve been veering unsteadily between appreciation and snide dismissal. Yesterday, for instance, Paul Mirengoff put up a post on Palinmania, a subject which I agree warrants self-reflection on the part of conservatives—but rather than addressing the real problem (the recurring temptation to put too much weight on and too much of our hope in politicians, who are, after all, merely human), he simply dismissed the phenomenon as ridiculous because focused on an “empty, or at least incomplete, vessel.” The implication, it seems to me, is that if John McCain had picked someone worthy for the slot (and you know whom they have in mind), the reaction might be reasonable; the problem is that Sarah Palin is unworthy.I now know that I’m not the only one who’s been bothered by their ongoing attitude; Beldar put up an excellent post this morning critiquing their complaints about the GOP response to Gov. Palin, a post which made several points that badly needed making; I hope they pay attention to what he has to say and re-evaluate their position.That said, I think there are a couple things which still need to be said, and both come down to another Paul Mirengoff post dismissing “the ‘Life Happens’ Republicans.” He concludes that post with the line, “The party has changed. It has become either less or more mature”—and from the tone and thrust of the preceding paragraphs, it’s clear that he’d vote for “less.” Though it’s a brief post, he manages to articulate three things which he holds up as signs of GOP immaturity. Taking the last one first, he writes,

The catch-phrase of the day seemed to be “life happens.” And indeed it does. But Republicans used to believe that the choices we make usually go a long way towards shaping the manner in which life happens, and that therefore indifference is not a fully appropriate response to bad choices.

This, I believe, is unfair—indeed, as unfair in its way as anything out of the liberal media. What exactly are the choices involved here? Let’s list them:

  • Bristol Palin’s choice to have sex with her boyfriend, Levi Johnston
  • Their decision to get married (which came before her pregnancy)
  • Their decision, on her pregnancy, to keep the baby
  • Todd and Sarah Palin’s decision to support their daughter and future son-in-law in their marriage and parenthood

Which of these choices was a bad choice? The first one. (Liberals would disagree, of course, but I’m not addressing liberals here.) Who made it? Bristol Palin. (And Levi Johnston, of course, but Gov. Palin didn’t raise him, so he may be considered outside the purview of anything reflecting on her.) In considering that, one might fairly say that “the choices we make usually go a long way towards shaping the manner in which life happens, and that therefore indifference is not a fully appropriate response to bad choices”; and if you look at the response which Bristol Palin made, and which her parents made, to that choice and its consequences, you can clearly see that Mirengoff’s snide “used to believe” is in fact unfair and unwarranted. Clearly, the Palin family firmly believes that “the choices we make usually go a long way towards shaping the manner in which life happens, and that therefore indifference is not a fully appropriate response to bad choices”—you can see that from the string of good choices Bristol Palin and her family made in response to the initial choice. And it’s to that that the GOP delegates were responding positively; painting their acknowledgement of the fact that “life happens” as “indifference . . . to bad choices” is simply wrong.Mirengoff’s uncharitable misreading of the GOP delegates’ charity and forbearance as immaturity is the thing that galls me most here, but it’s not the only thing. In the third paragraph of his post, he writes,

Many people here say they are looking forward to Palin’s debate with Talkin’ Joe Biden. They say that expectations will be low and there’s a good chance that Biden will come off as a bully. There was a time when Republicans would have been less delighted to be the party of low expectations, relying on a sympathy backlash.

(He also notes talk of a sympathy backlash with respect to Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.) If you want to blame anyone for teaching the party the political utility of low expectations, go look at George W. Bush, who found them very helpful in his debates with Al Gore. As for the whole “sympathy backlash” idea, that’s politics, and has been for a while now. What really gets me, though, is that last clause. There’s actually no suggestion in anything he reports that convention delegates were relying on a sympathy backlash for Gov. Palin in her debate with Sen. Biden; that’s his insertion. They understand, yes, the advantage of low expectations on the part of the press—but that doesn’t mean their own expectations for her performance are low. That’s Mirengoff reading his own low view of Gov. Palin into their comments.This assumes his initial complaint:

a vice presidential nominee who, given her credentials, would not (in my opinion) have rated ten minutes of consideration but for her gender.

I will grant that Gov. Palin doesn’t have a long résumé; but as Beldar pointed out here, she’s accomplished a great deal in her time as governor, and as he noted here, her service as chair and ethics commissioner on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is in fact a major point on her résumé as well. He notes and comments on an article from the New York Times which highlights the fact that the governor of Alaska is perhaps the most powerful state executive in the country, as well as being the one who faces some of the greatest challenges. Further, as CinC of the Alaska National Guard (a role in which she has shone—see the video below), in pipeline negotiations involving Canada and fisheries matters in which Canada, Russia, Japan, and South Korea are concerned, she has far more foreign-policy experience than other governors. And then throw in the fact that everything Gov. Palin has accomplished, she has accomplished in the face of an extremely difficult political environment.All of which is to say: granting everything good about Gov. Pawlenty, what argument is there that he is more prepared or qualified to be VP except that he’s been governor longer? Considered carefully, even given her shorter tenure, I’m firmly convinced that her credentials alone warranted at least as much consideration as his did, even leaving aside her gender—and even leaving aside as well the fact that she’s a much more charismatic speaker and seems to match him (roughly, anyway) in other political skills. Three months ago, when I started looking closely into her record, her accomplishments blew away my initial concerns over her length of service, and I became firmly convinced that she was the best choice for VP; I think any impartial consideration of her record will at least concede that that was a fair and reasonable conclusion, both for me and for Sen. McCain.

HT for the video: Jennifer Rubin

On this blog in history: March 2007

Continuing with the historical links posts, here are the highlights from March of last year:Simply Wright
N. T. Wright, fresh off his own crack at popular apologetics (Simply Christian), took the time to write a review essay of the modern masterwork in that respect, C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I appreciated his essay, so I blogged about it.Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, RIP
Just my attempt to pay due honor to one of the most remarkable scholars of my lifetime.Conversation on Calvinism
This one came out of a discussion on The Thinklings; I provided a brief summary of Calvinist distinctives as an opportunity for folks to ask questions on what exactly it means to be Reformed. The conversation, alas, didn’t keep going very long.Presumption, my dear sir; pure presumption
My response to the disciplinary arrogance of scientists (would-be debunkers of Christianity, in the cases cited here) who consider that being scientists makes them experts in history, philosophy, and theology, too.

Our best weapon against Iran? Oil prices

Even ahead of China, Iran is the most difficult problem we have in foreign policy right now. As John McCain said in his speech last night, the ayatollahs are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world (starting with their wholly-owned subsidiary, Hamas), and they’re very hard to get at; for reasons of terrain alone, a traditional military response such as an invasion would be extremely unwise. Add in other considerations, and the advisability of such an approach only decreases. And yet, contra Joe Biden, we can’t just let them do whatever they feel like doing. So what do we do?One option might be what the old KGB called mokrie dela—”wet work,” such as assassinations and clandestine subversion—but that’s probably not the best way to go; not only is it morally problematic, but historically, we aren’t very good at it. This does, however, raise the thought that a more subversive approach to the Iranian government, especially in light of rising domestic disaffection in that country, is probably the one to take; what brute force can’t accomplish, geopolitical judo might. And as Emanuele Ottolenghi points out, a recent IMF report on the Iranian economy shows us how to do that, or at least how to begin: do everything possible, from increasing domestic production to pressure on OPEC, to bring the price of crude oil back down below $85 a barrel. Not only would that be good for the American economy, it would throw the Iranian economy into crisis. The current high price of oil has propped up the current regime there and funded its quest for WMDs and its adventures in international terrorism; knocking the ayatollahs’ feet out from under them, economically speaking, would at the very least cripple their international ambitions, and quite possibly start an earthquake that would bring them down altogether.

Memo to the movement: be careful

As thrilled as I was to see Gov. Sarah Palin capture the hearts of (most of) the Republican Party, there are a couple ironies here of which we need to be wary: concerns that we ourselves have raised about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are in danger of becoming true of us as well. The lesser is the one that I’ve seen noted, that after invoking celebrity culture to critique Sen. Obama and Obamamania, the McCain campaign has most certainly, if not fully intentionally, created a celebrity of its own, and Palinmania is very real. We need to be careful not to get too caught up in it.

More serious, though, is the messianic aura and language of the Obama campaign, something for which the McCain campaign also jabbed him in its ad “The One.” I wrote about this a couple months ago thusly:

I don’t usually link to the same blog back-to-back, but there’s another post of Doug Hagler’s I want to point you to, one he titled “Idolatry American style: Barak Obama”; obviously we have very different views of the Republican Party (though even most Republican voters aren’t very happy with the Republican Party at the moment), but as I’ve written before, I think the idolatrous tendencies in American politics are a real problem, and I agree with Doug (and others) that they’re particularly pronounced around Sen. Obama. (I don’t think they’re the senator’s fault—rest assured, I’m not accusing him of having any sort of delusions in that regard—but I do think he’s yielded to the temptation to take advantage of them, and I really wish he hadn’t.)

Somehow or other, we need a countercampaign to bring the people of this country around to a critically important truth: Politics will not save us. We keep getting sucked in to the idea that if we can just win this vote or elect this candidate, that will take care of our problems, and it just isn’t going to happen; Doug’s dead on when he writes, “Nothing messianic is coming from either party any time soon.” Nor any time later, either. Politics will not save us, government will not save us, no institution is going to save us; only God can save us, and he builds his people from the bottom up, one life at a time. If we want to work to address our problems in a way that will actually make a difference, it certainly helps to have a government (and other institutions likewise) that facilitates our efforts rather than making matters worse, but in the end, all we can do is follow God’s example. One life at a time, one family at a time, one small group of people at a time. From the bottom up. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

The danger of all the excitement over Gov. Palin, glad though I am to see it, is that we could all too easily lose sight of this; we could all too easily turn her into our own secular messiah, with “salvation” defined as a McCain victory in November. For this, too, we must remember that politics will not save us, and government will not save us—a McCain government no less, and no more, than an Obama government. Vote for McCain/Palin, yes, work for them, yes, as I am able; but remembering always that that is, at best, the lesser hope. Remember always that they too are only human, and flawed.

Update: for another, and quite interesting, perspective on this, check out this post from ShrinkWrapped. HT: The Anchoress)

The “I Am Sarah Palin” vote is mobilizing

I’ve been talking up Sarah Palin for two and a half months now—long enough to have been ahead of the curve, if not truly an early adopter—laying out a long list of reasons why I believed she was the best pick as John McCain’s running mate; I never imagined I’d thought of them all, but I did think I’d hit all the high points.As it turns out, I was wrong. Blame it on the Y chromosome: I’m a guy, I miss things. I think I’m a reasonably attentive husband to my wife—we talk a lot, about a lot of different matters and issues, and believe it or not, I think I manage to listen about as often as I speak—but whatever she might tell me about her own experience, it’s still hers, not mine. I’ve never lived through junior high or high school as a girl (though my junior-high years were quite bad enough as they were, thanks), never been a daughter, never been a woman; clearly, from what I see and hear, it makes a difference, but I cannot know that difference from the inside. Even in our marriage, though we live life together and make decisions together, though I listen and seek to understand how it is for her each day and how she sees everything, I can only know her experience from the outside; I don’t feel it, I feel my own.Which means that when I started talking about the reasons why Sen. McCain should pick Gov. Palin, I missed one: identification. I missed the reaction of the women who are saying, “I am Sarah Palin. Her story is my story”—and there are enough that CafePress has put out a T-shirt. I missed the reaction and perspective of women like Annette Budd and Hope Reynolds and Dr. Melissa Clouthier (a bit of profanity there, just so you know) and, yes, my own wife and the women with whom she meets for playdates for our children. Like I said, I’m a guy—I didn’t know, didn’t see it coming. I’m learning.There’s a particular subset to this which may be especially important: Republican women. For one thing, they are the most likely to identify with Gov. Palin; as Will Wilkinson put it,

What they liked is that they saw a feminine yet powerful conservative Christian mother—someone they understand, someone they would like to have as a friend, someone they are or would like to be. What they liked was the thrill of such direct cultural identification, of being on that stage and commanding attention and respect. I do not doubt that conservative Christian moms all over the country were brought to tears by the power of this. There are a lot of conservative Christian moms.

And for the other, as Michelle Malkin notes, women who vote Republican have become wearily familiar with what she calls “the four stages of conservative female abuse”; but with the GOP putting one of their own front and center, and the media coming down on her in a fury like a Denali avalanche, it sounds like many of them have had it. Tom DeLay went so far as to say, “The media has done more for John McCain in the last two days than he’s done for himself in the last year and a half. Trashing her is waking up the sleeping giant, and the sleeping giant is Republican women.” I believed Gov. Palin would energize the GOP base in a way in which no one else could; it never occurred to me that the MSM would collude with her to help her do it. But that, if inadvertently, may be just what they’ve managed to do.One more crazy turn in this craziest of all political seasons.

Chain-link post

I really and truly don’t want this blog to turn into “all Palin, all the time”—I have a number of other things I want to post on as well, and I do intend to get to them soon—but I also have a few more comments I want to make about Palin and the political situation as well. To start off with, though—how big of an effect did her speech have? Big enough that it’s impossible to keep on top of the response. So, in lieu of trying, I’ll simply point you to a couple places where you can find a lot of good material.