Monthly Archives: January 2010

A good call from the President

Posted on by | 10 Comments

I’d meant to post on this yesterday, but didn’t get the chance. The devil is in the details, as always, but the core idea here is right and important:

With former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker at his side, Mr. Obama said he wanted to toughen existing limits on the size of financial firms and force them to choose between the protection of the government’s safety net and the often-lucrative business of trading for their own accounts or owning hedge funds or private-equity funds. . . .

“The key issue is that institutions that are getting a backstop from the taxpayer shouldn’t be able to make a profit off their own investing,” said Austan Goolsbee, a White House economist who staffs the presidential advisory board Mr. Volcker chairs. . . .

Under the Obama proposal, banks that take federally insured deposits or have the right to borrow from the Fed would be prohibited from owning, investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private-equity firms. “You can choose to engage in proprietary trading, or you can own a bank, but you can’t do both,” an administration official said.

The reason for taking this step was articulated well by National Review‘s Jim Manzi:

Finance professionals, like members of all occupational categories, attempt to build barriers that maintain their own income. One of the techniques used is to shroud what are often pretty basic ideas in pseudo-technical jargon. The reason that it is dysfunctional to have an insured banking system that is free to engage in speculative investing is simple and fundamental. We (i.e., the government, which is to say, ultimately, the taxpayers) provide a guarantee to depositors that when they put their savings in a regulated bank, then the money will be there even if the bank fails, because we believe that the chaos and uncertainty of a banking system operating without this guarantee is too unstable to maintain political viability. But if you let the operators of these banks take the deposits and, in effect, put them on a long-shot bet at the horse track, and then pay themselves a billion dollars in bonuses if the horse comes in, but turn to taxpayers to pay off depositors if the horse doesn’t, guess what is going to happen? Exactly what we saw in 2008 happens.

If you want to have a safe, secure banking system for small depositors, but don’t want to make risky investing illegal (which would be very damaging to the economy), the obvious solution is to not allow any one company to both take guaranteed deposits and also make speculative investments. This was the solution developed and implemented in the New Deal. We need a modernized version of this basic construct, and as far as I can see, this is what President Obama has proposed. . . .

Make no mistake, many banking executives right now are benefiting from taxpayer subsidies. Even if they pay back the TARP money, the government has demonstrated that it will intervene to protect large banks. This can’t be paid back. And this implicit, but very real, guarantee represents an enormous transfer of economic value from taxpayers to any bank executives and investors who are willing to take advantage of it. Unsurprisingly, pretty much all of them are.

Now, as Megan McArdle points out, there’s a lot that we don’t know that will bear very heavily on whether this policy ultimately benefits our country—and even assuming it’s the right thing to do, there will be distinct and significant downsides to it. Nevertheless, the government has to reduce its exposure somehow, and this seems to be the most reasonable way to do it.

The government is recognizing that banks “paying back” the funds they were given is essentially meaningless, because they’ve still got a very, very valuable implied government guarantee. One could argue that they’ve had it since 1991 when the Federal Reserve got the power to loan money to investment banks in extremis. But since last fall, it’s the next best thing to explicit. That means the government needs to take steps to mitigate its own risk.

The way you do that is to decouple the key operation the government insures—the funneling of credit from those with money to those who want to borrow it—from making bets on market outcomes that can go badly wrong. And to ensure that no institution has enough liabilities to take down the system if it fails.

It may not work, as she acknowledges, and it won’t be without significant cost; but we can’t unring the bailout bell, so what else are we going to do?

True colors

Posted on by | 5 Comments

If you thought liberals were in favor of free speech, think again. Today, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which it struck down a major censorship provision of the McCain-Feingold “campaign-finance reform” act of 2002. In response, Ralph Nader’s group Public Citizen issued a call for a constitutional amendment to partially repeal the First Amendment:

In their statement responding to the decision, Public Citizen demanded public financing of congressional elections, then added its call for an amendment, saying:

Public Citizen will aggressively work in support of a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. We do not lightly call for a constitutional amendment. But today’s decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.

We are formulating language for possible amendments, asking members of the public to sign a petition to affirm their support for the idea of constitutional change, and planning to convene leading thinkers in the areas of constitutional law and corporate accountability to begin a series of in-depth conversations about winning a constitutional amendment.

[. . .]

At least they are finally admitting that they view the First Amendment—which says Congress shall make no law respecting freedom of speech—as flawed. And that they judge themselves as smarter than James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights that begins with the First Amendment (actually it was the third, but that’s another story), and the “Father of the Constitution.”

Whither the administration now?

Posted on by | No Comments

It has been interesting watching the reactions to Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts—after all, it’s significant enough that a Republican won a Senate seat in the safest Democratic state in the country, but that he did so not by painting himself as a moderate but by emphasizing his conservative positions on taxes, health care, and national security is amazing. Normally, one figures that significant defeats should lead us to examine ourselves and re-evaluate our efforts, and that failure should inspire us to humility; the initial returns from leading Democrats didn’t show any sign of that, though. Nancy Pelosi declared that the health care deform bill would pass, “one way or another,” even if the only way to do that were to force the House to accept the Senate bill in toto—even though folks like Bart Stupak were saying that that idea was a non-starter (a fact which Speaker Pelosi is now recognizing). The lesson Howard Dean drew from the election is, “We gotta be tougher . . . leadership is not trying to be centrist and get everybody to work together, because that’s not going to happen.” Well, no, if you’re not willing to give as much as you get, it isn’t.

(Interestingly, Dean also said, “George Bush would have had the health care bill done a long time ago and it would have been done through reconciliation and that would have been what we wanted.” This is striking on two counts. First, it’s revealing of his attitudes; it would appear that all the things for which the Democratic leadership berated President Bush were things which they secretly admired. Second, though Dean didn’t make it explicit, this is a pretty sharp negative comparison of Barack Obama to his predecessor; the implicit line here is “Bush was tough and knew how to get things done; Obama isn’t and doesn’t.” Given how vicious the Democrats were toward President Bush, this is no small thing.)

As a practical matter, once a Brown victory began to look probable, Democrats began talking about delaying seating him so that the placeholder, Paul Kirk, could vote on the Demcare bill. That talk sparked a sharp popular response, including petitions and Facebook groups demanding Sen.-elect Brown be seated immediately, and Democratic senators such as James Webb (D-VA) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) quickly made it known after the election that they expected the Senate to hold any significant deliberations until Sen. Brown had formally joined the chamber; President Obama said the same, but whether he meant it or whether this is just another case of him taking the rhetorical high road and leaving the dirty work to those around him is unclear.

What does seem clear, however, is that the President and his administration are unable or unwilling to see the election result in Massachusetts as reflecting on them, or as an indication that they need to change their agenda. So far, White House weathervane Robert Gibbs has varied between flippant, glib, sarcastic, and dismissive in dealing with any suggestions to that effect. David Axelrod has declared that backing off on the President’s health care agenda is “not an option.” Mike Allen of Politico quoted “a senior administration official” as saying,

This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt. It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.

The article continues,

The health care backdrop has given the White House a strong incentive to strike a defiant posture, at least rhetorically, in response to what would be an undeniable embarrassment for the president and his party. . . .

“The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall,” a presidential adviser said. “The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, ‘At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.’”

Which makes perfect political sense . . . if you believe that those are things the public wants done. If a majority of Americans don’t want them done, then the overall public response to that will be “Good for the Republicans,” and the result will be strong gains for the GOP. At this point, the White House appears (wilfully?) incapable of considering the possibility that Barack Obama might not have the mandate he thought he had, and that the public might actually really honestly not want him to do what he’s determined to do. He even went so far as to tell congressional Democrats that if they just pass the health care bill, those who are opposed to it will “suddenly” discover that they like it after all.

Given this, it’s not surprising that the President seems to assume that his party will go along with him in pushing his agenda through; at this point, though, even liberals in the party are backing away from his agenda, as the Massachusetts vote has put the fear of defeat in them. As the New York Times put it,

Mr. Obama could find it more difficult to get moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats in Congress to cast politically tough votes.

It will be lost on few in the House or the Senate that the Democratic defeat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state came despite a last-minute personal appeal from Mr. Obama, who campaigned here for Ms. Coakley on Sunday. This suggests that Mr. Obama may be of limited or no help to candidates in close elections. No less important, he may not have much leverage to stop them from defying him in Washington.

The question is, is the President willing to accept this? Is he willing to accept that he isn’t the titanic, popularly-adored champion of liberal change he seems to have thought he was? Or is he wedded to the belief that he’s a transformative figure who’s going to change America and its politics forever? As Jay Cost says, we really don’t know, but if the White House isn’t just blustering, if they’re serious, it will not end well.

Democrats should hope that this is just aggressive talk designed to buy the White House time to figure out what to do next. If the President really thinks this, they are going to be in a mess of trouble for the rest of his term, for it would mean that he’s too stubborn or arrogant to make needed adjustments. It would mean that a comparison to Jimmy Carter is more apt than a comparison to Franklin Roosevelt.

Frankly, all of us should hope that this is just bluster from a typically blustery White House. Barack Obama is going to hold his office for the next three years regardless of whatever happens in congressional elections in November, regardless of how well he governs, regardless of where his job approval numbers go. Let’s hope that this untested, young, inexperienced fellow the country elevated to the highest office in the land has the good sense to recognize the message the Bay State sent last night, to understand that messages of similar intensity will be sent in November, and to direct his staff to make necessary changes.

Watch Obama carefully for the next few weeks. How does he react to this Senate defeat? What does he do about health care? Does his message shop change its typically aggressive posture? Answers to these questions are going to teach us a lot about the still-mysterious person who currently holds the office of President of the United States.

For the sake of the country, let’s hope that our President is willing to humble himself and his administration, to accept the message of Massachusetts and bow his head to the people. As John Judis has pointed out, Barack Obama really prefers to hang out with the elite and look down on the rest of us; here’s hoping he’ll come down from the ivory tower and stop seeing himself as above the people he was elected to serve. Partly, this would mean moving to the center, looking for initiatives that both Democrats and Republicans can support; more than that, though, it would mean spending a lot less time lecturing Americans on what’s good for us, and a lot more time listening seriously and respectfully to those who disagree with him. It would mean replacing the attitude of “I won” with the attitude of “How can I serve you?” Do I expect this? I don’t know. But here’s hoping.

Making an idol of autonomy

Posted on by | 1 Comment

I first ran across this video and this song in a post on The Thinklings (which I can’t find now, not remembering the text of the post), and mercifully quickly forgot it. I happened, through a combination of circumstances, to hear it again last week, and now I have it stuck in my head. It’s aggravating, because this song annoys me from about every angle possible. It’s sappy and saccharine, for one thing, lyrically bad and musically sickly. It’s tendentious and presumptuous, in claiming “thus says the Lord” for a disputed theological position (I probably wouldn’t be quite as irritated were some idiot Calvinist to do the same in reverse, but it would be mighty close; that’s just inappropriate no matter who does it). It fails to take human sin seriously, portraying it as something we can simply choose not to do. (To some extent, that could be said to be true of Arminianism more generally, but this sort of naïvete about sin goes beyond Arminianism into the realm of caricature.)

And most significantly, because the author of this thing had the gall to write it as something spoken by God, its sickly-sweet sappiness is more than just an artistic failing, it’s a theological problem. This song abases God, portraying him as a moony lovesick teenager (with all the artistic capabilities and instincts pertaining thereunto), for the sake of feeding our own sense of self-importance. Even if I were an Arminian, this would drive me bats. We must be zealous for the glory and holiness of God; don’t trust anyone who isn’t. A God who is at our beck and call as this song portrays is a God made in our own image, to suit and serve our own desires . . . which is to say, a false god.

Anything that is not the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone can become an idol.

Sen. Scott Brown, ordinary barbarian?

Posted on by | 6 Comments

It sure sounds like it to me. I will freely admit, up until a couple days ago I knew nothing about him except that he was trying to do the impossible: get elected to the Senate as a Republican in the Edward M. Kennedy Memorial Massachusetts Senate Seat. Having seen him do just that, and having had the chance to see and read his victory speech, I have to admit, I’m impressed. For video of his speech, go here; the text is below, courtesy of Charlie Spiering:

Thank you very much. I’ll bet they can hear all this cheering down in Washington, D.C.

And I hope they’re paying close attention, because tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken.

From the Berkshires to Boston, from Springfield to Cape Cod, the voters of this Commonwealth defied the odds and the experts. And tonight, the independent majority has delivered a great victory.I thank the people of Massachusetts for electing me as your next United States senator.

Every day I hold this office, I will give all that is in me to serve you well and make you proud.

Most of all, I will remember that while the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person and no political party—and as I have said before, and you said loud and clear today, it is the people’s seat.

Interim Senator Paul Kirk has completed his work as a senator by appointment of the governor, and for the work he has done, I thank him. The people, by their votes, have now filled the office themselves, and I am ready to go to Washington without delay.

I also want to thank Martha Coakley for her call of congratulations. A hard contest is now behind us, and now we must come together as a Commonwealth.

This special election came about because we lost someone very dear to Massachusetts, and to America. Senator Ted Kennedy was a tireless and big-hearted public servant, and for most of my lifetime was a force like no other in this state. His name will always command the affection and respect by the people of Massachusetts, and the same goes for his wife Vicki. There’s no replacing a man like that, but tonight I honor his memory, and I pledge my very best to be a worthy successor.

I said at the very beginning, when I sat down at the dinner table with my family, that win or lose we would run a race which would make us all proud. I kept my word and we ran a clean, issues oriented, upbeat campaign—and I wouldn’t trade that for anything.

When I first started running, I asked for a lot of help, because I knew it was going to be me against the machine. I was wrong, it was all of us against the machine. And after tonight we have shown everyone that—now—you are the machine.

I’m glad my mom and dad, brothers, sisters, and so many family members are here tonight.

Once again, before I go any further, I want to introduce somebody very special . . . That is my wife, Gail.

And as you know, my wife Gail couldn’t join me on the campaign trail because of her work as a Boston TV journalist. But I will let you in on a little secret. She didn’t stay neutral today, and she voted for the winner. I rely as always, on Gail’s love and support and that of our beautiful daughters.

Arianna will be returning a day or two late to her pre-med studies at Syracuse, because she’s been giving her all to this campaign. As always, Arianna and her sister Ayla have been a joy to Gail and me, and we’re so grateful to them both. Even before her campaign performances, millions of Americans had already heard Ayla’s amazing voice on “American Idol.” As Boston College basketball fans know, she’s also pretty good on the court.

If the President thinks they’ve got basketball talent at the White House, I ask him to pick his best teammate and find some time to play two-on-two with Ayla and me.

I’m grateful to all those from across Massachusetts who came through for me even when I was a long shot. I especially thank a friend who was there with encouragement from the very beginning, and helped show us the way to victory—former Governor Mitt Romney.

I’ll never forget the help of another man who took the time to meet with me months ago – who told me I could win, and gave me confidence for the fight. It was all so characteristic of a truly great and heroic American, and tonight I thank my new colleague, Senator John McCain.

On a night like this, when so many people mark your name on a statewide ballot, you think back to the first people who gave you a chance and believed. For the trust they placed in me, and for all they have taught me, I thank my neighbors and friends in my Senate district and especially my hometown of Wrentham. The cause and victory that all America has seen tonight started right there with all of you.

Let me tell you when I first got the feeling something big was happening in this campaign. It was when I was driving along and spotted a handmade, Scott Brown yard sign that I hadn’t actually put there myself.This little campaign of ours was destined for greater things than any of us knew, and the message went far beyond the name on the sign.

It all started with me, my truck, and a few dedicated volunteers. It ended with Air Force One making an emergency run to Logan. I didn’t mind when President Obama came here and criticized me—that happens in campaigns. But when he criticized my truck, that’s where I draw the line.

We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, there’s trouble everywhere—and now they know it.

In every corner of our state, I met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and asked them for their vote. I didn’t worry about their party affiliation, and they didn’t worry about mine. It was simply shared conviction that brought us all together.

One thing is clear, voters do not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.

This bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, hurt Medicare, destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. It is not in the interest of our state or country—we can do better.

When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. No more closed-door meetings or back room deals by an out of touch party leadership. No more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with special interests, and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay.

In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right. Once again, we can do better.

I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs—and as President John F. Kennedy taught us, that starts with an across the board tax cut for individuals and businesses that will create jobs and stimulate the economy. It’s that simple!

I will work in the Senate to defend our nation’s interests and to keep our military second to none. As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and get our veterans all the benefits they deserve.

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation—they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I’ve heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better.

They thought you were on board with all of their ambitions. They thought they owned your vote. They thought they couldn’t lose. But tonight, you and you and you have set them straight.

Across this country, we are united by basic convictions that need only to be clearly stated to win a majority. If anyone still doubts that, in the election season just beginning, let them look to Massachusetts.

Fellow citizens, what happened in this election can happen all over America. We are witnesses, you and I, to the truth that ideals, hard work, and strength of heart can overcome any political machine. We ran a campaign never to be forgotten, and led a cause that deserved and received all that we could give it.

And now, because of your independence, and your trust, I will hold for a time the seat once filled by patriots from John Quincy Adams to John F. Kennedy and his brother Ted. As I proudly take up the duty you have given me, I promise to do my best for Massachusetts and America every time the roll is called.

I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people. I’ve got a lot to learn in the Senate, but I know who I am and I know who I serve.

I’m Scott Brown, I’m from Wrentham, I drive a truck, and I am nobody’s senator but yours.

Thank you very much.

Michelle Malkin’s comments here are apt:

Scott Brown quite noticeably didn’t mention the word “Republican” once during his prepared remarks. . . .

As I’ve said for many years, the Republican Party needs to clean its own house before it demands that the Democrats clean theirs.

The Brown victory was very clearly a strike against machine politics of all kinds and business as usual in Washington. That includes top-down meddling by tired old GOP operatives. The party bosses have tried to install their preferred Senate candidates in Florida, Colorado, and California. They will use Brown’s win to argue for more “mooooooderation.” As I wrote yesterday in my analysis of how Brown unified a center-right-indie coalition, that is not the lesson of the Massachusetts miracle.

Sen.-elect Brown will be responsible to represent the people of Massachusetts on Capitol Hill, and the people of Massachusetts as a whole are significantly to the left of the national GOP; as such, obviously, Sen. Brown will presumably be on the liberal end of the Senate Republican caucus, representing a center-right perspective. Given his campaign, one expects he’ll be more to the liberal side on social issues and more conservative on matters of economic and foreign policy. That’s fine. The most important thing is that he stay true to his campaign promises to oppose backroom dealing and machine politics—of both parties. That’s the biggest thing this country needs from its politicians right now, and the biggest service he can provide.

Mr. Brown Goes to Washington

Posted on by | 4 Comments

Not an original line, I know, but too perfect anyway. For the first time since 1972, Massachusetts has elected a Republican to the Senate—and pretty convincingly; the seat had had Edward M. Kennedy’s name engraved on it since the 1960s, but a formerly-little-known state senator named Scott Brown knocked off his designated Democratic successor, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, by a decisive margin (52.3%-46.7% with 92% of precincts reporting). Sarah Palin’s Facebook note nails it, I think:

Congratulations to the new Senator-elect from Massachusetts! Scott Brown’s victory proves that the desire for real solutions transcends notions of “blue state” and “red state”. Americans agree that we need to hold our politicians accountable and bring common sense to D.C.

Recent elections have taught us that when a party in power loses its way, the American people will hold them accountable at the ballot box. Today under the Democrats, government spending is up nearly 23 percent and unemployment is higher than it’s been in a quarter of a century. For the past year they’ve built a record of broken promises, fat cat bailouts, closed-door meetings with lobbyists, sweetheart deals for corporate cronies, and midnight votes on weekends for major legislation that wasn’t even read. The good citizens of Massachusetts reminded Democrats not to take them for granted.

Americans cheered for Scott Brown’s underdog campaign because they viewed his candidacy as a vote against the Democrats’ health care bill. You know that there’s something wrong with this legislation when opposition to it inspired a Republican victory in a state that currently has no Republicans in Congress and last sent a Republican to the Senate nearly 40 years ago.

Clearly this victory is a bellwether for the big election night ten months from now. In the spirit of bipartisanship, let me offer some advice to the Democrats on how to stem this populist tide. Scrap your current health care bill and start from scratch. We all want true reform, but government mandated insurance is not it. Scott Brown campaigned against this top-down bureaucratic mess. We need common sense solutions like reforming malpractice laws, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, giving individual purchasers the same tax benefits as those who get coverage through their employers, and letting small businesses pool together to provide insurance for their employees. Focus your efforts on jobs, not on job-killing legislation. Such a change in approach would show Americans that you’re listening.

My best wishes to Senator-Elect Brown. When you go to Washington, may you never forget the ordinary citizens you met while driving that truck through the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

—Sarah Palin

Does this mean that Massachusetts has suddenly gone conservative? Not likely, though Brown ran a pretty conservative campaign, running against big government and ObamaPelosiCare; as Jay Cost has said, voter revolts of this sort are less about the agenda of the opposition party and more about voters looking for an alternative to the party in power. To quote Cost,

When the country is angry about the state of the union, and it feels that it’s time for a change, it will vote for the opposition party as a “protest vehicle.” Why? Because in our two-party system there is no place else for the people to go. They might not like the opposition, but it is a choice between them and the status quo. . . .

If it’s a choice between the status quo and an opposition party that has disappointed in the past, sometimes circumstances demand the opposition. Historically speaking, that’s simply a true statement. There have been multiple periods in our country’s history when the people have swung back and forth between the parties, casting about for somebody—anybody—who could manage public affairs competently. The most violent swings came in the 1880s-1890s as the country struggled through the latter phases of the industrial revolution, but we saw a more recent one in 1974-1982. In both periods, neither side had given the people much reason for confidence, but that did not stop them from using both as “protest vehicles.”

What this election says about Sen.-elect Brown’s ability to hold the seat when the term expires in 2012 is, honestly, not all that much; if 2010 and 2012 play out for the GOP like 2006 and 2008 did for the Democrats, he’ll probably win re-election, but under normal circumstances, there’s no way he wins election from Massachusetts. For now, though, Scott Brown is playing Paul Revere, heralding a backlash against the Democratic Party and the way they’ve been governing since returning to power.

The interesting thing will be to see if the White House and the party establishment take that seriously and make substantive changes in the way they’ve been doing business. So far, it doesn’t look like it; from their public comments, they seem determined to blame the defeat all on Coakley, and to refuse to consider the possibility that the President has lost his mojo. If their public face accurately reflects their private perceptions, November could indeed be a bloodbath for the Democrats, because their top leadership won’t take the threat seriously until it’s too late.

The risk for them is especially great given that Barack Obama went up to campaign for Coakley—the White House had initially decided that he wouldn’t unless she was likely to win, in order to protect the President’s political prestige; when he went up and gave a speech for her, lackluster though it may have been, he upped the ante. With her defeat, his image and credibility have taken a hit. If he and his advisors don’t accept that fact, it’s going to skew their perceptions of what they can accomplish politically, and how. That will only worsen the odds for Democratic candidates this fall.

All of which is to say, Scott Brown has proven himself a very impressive politician, and may well have a bright future despite being a Republican from Massachusetts; but he’s less interesting for himself than for what he represents, and what his election may portend.

Not a good bargain

Posted on by | 2 Comments

The notion that the IRS should be able to seize your assets if you don’t arrange your health care to the approval of the federal government represents the de facto nationalization of your body, which is about as primal an assault on individual liberty as one could devise.

—Mark Steyn

That captures the core issue here—and my most basic philosophical reason for opposing ObamaPelosiCare—about as well as can be done. Though Benjamin Franklin comes close:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Credit to the White House

Posted on by | 3 Comments

This was a good and wise and humane decision:

extending temporary amnesty to Haitians who were illegally inside the U.S. before this week’s catastrophic earthquake. Some 30,000 Haitians had been awaiting deportation but will now be allowed to stay in the U.S. and work for another 18 months. . . .

We hope even the most restrictionist voices on the right and in the labor movement will understand the humanitarian imperative. The suffering and chaos since the earthquake should make it obvious that Haiti is no place to return people whose only crime was coming to America to escape the island’s poverty and ill-governance.

For that matter, we don’t mind if they stay here permanently. Haitian immigrants as a group are among America’s most successful, which demonstrates that Haiti’s woes owe more to corruption, disdain for property rights and lack of public safety than to any flaw in its people. Their remittances to Haiti also help to sustain the impoverished population. Haitians received some $1.65 billion from overseas in 2006, according to the Inter-American Development Bank.

The President and his advisors have reason to be proud of themselves.

Toledot

Posted on by | No Comments

(Genesis 2:4-25, Isaiah 66:1-2a; 1 John 4:7-12)

I said last week that the biggest difficulty with Genesis 1-2 is hearing what they’re actually saying. Cultural differences are part of the reason for that, as the expectations and questions we bring to the text aren’t necessarily the ones it assumes; as I also noted, though, another major issue is the deliberate attempts to destroy their authority that have been made by those who don’t want to have to listen to them. In that respect, the issue with Genesis 1 is the effort to disguise pagan idolatry as science; with Genesis 2, it’s the modern impulse to reduce the Bible from God’s inspired Word to just another flawed human text. You see, a while back, scholars began to argue that the five books of Moses weren’t written by Moses—or indeed, by any one person—but were cobbled together at some point in Israel’s history from a number of pre-existing texts, and that whoever put them together did a pretty poor job. To my eyes, this idea has had its run and seems to be fading slowly from the scene, but it’s done a lot of damage; even if it ends up being generally rejected, it has still distorted our understanding of a lot of passages in the Old Testament—including this one.

You see, for a long time, our passage this morning has been treated as Exhibit A for this idea; after all, why else would Genesis start out with that grand picture of creation, and then turn around and give us another creation account? From our scientific point of view—remember, everything is supposed to run in a straight line—it makes no sense, and so a lot of folks conclude that what we have here is a different creation account that just got jammed in after Genesis 1 because nobody knew what else to do with it. But if we get outside our own assumptions about how things are supposed to be done, we can see that in fact, this passage makes perfect sense right where it is.

The key is the Hebrew word that the NIV translates “account” in verse 4, as in, “this is the account of the heavens and the earth”; it’s the Hebrew word toledot, which I’ve taken as the title of the sermon this morning. It literally means “descendants,” and it’s the word that the Old Testament uses to introduce genealogies; thus, for instance, Genesis 5—the genealogy from Adam to Noah, carrying the action up to Noah’s time and the great flood—begins, “This is the written account of Adam’s line,” the toledot of Adam. The interesting thing is, this word and this phrase are very important in the way Moses structured Genesis—they introduce each of the major sections of the book. The story of Noah begins with it, in Genesis 6:9. Genesis 11:27, which reads, “These are the toledot of Terah,” begins the story of Terah’s son Abram, later renamed Abraham. In Genesis 37:2, we have the toledot of Jacob—the story of his sons, and particularly his son Joseph. And here in Genesis 2, we have the toledot of the heavens and the earth—the account of their “descendants,” metaphorically speaking: the first human beings.

You see, Genesis 1 tells us what God did—he created the heavens and the earth—and this passage tells us what came of that, and thus what God’s purposes were in creating everything. Put another way, Genesis 1 tells us about the who, and it leaves the why to Genesis 2. To understand that, we need to understand a little more about what it means to say that human beings are created in the image of God. That statement in Genesis 1:26-27 is a loaded one, and we’ll spend more time next week looking at it, but the key thing here is that in the ancient world, when this book was written, the phrase “image of God” meant one thing: a statue of a deity in a temple.

For Israel’s neighbors, kingdoms such as Egypt and Babylon, establishing a temple to one of their gods was a very big deal; and while putting up the building was a great deal of work, that wasn’t the most important part. At the same time as some of the priests were supervising the construction, others would be at work making the image of the god or goddess; in Egypt I believe they made the images out of the heavy river clay and let them bake hard in the sun. In any case, as they shaped the image, of, say, Anubis, the dog-headed god, they would pray over each part. As they sculpted the eyes, the priests would pray over them to open them, that the god might see; as they dug out the ears, they would pray so that the god might hear; as they formed the hands and feet, they would pray so that the god could walk and use his hands; and when they were finished, they would blow on the lips to start the god breathing, bringing him to life.

That’s what religion was like back then; that’s how it worked. Your worship focused on the images of your deities, statues in human or animal form, or some combination; those were the representations of your gods and goddesses, so that you could see what they were like. Where the image of a god or goddess was, that god or goddess was understood to be present in the image. As a consequence, people believed that if they created these images and built houses for them, brought sacrifices and observed the ceremonies faithfully, they could ensure that their gods would be with them—and that if they didn’t, their gods would abandon them.

Now, I said last week that the central agenda of Genesis 1 is to establish that God is the only true God, and thus to challenge Israel’s persistent habit of wandering away to worship the gods of the nations; Genesis 2 takes that one step further. All of Israel’s neighbors believed they needed to build temples and make statues for their deities to be with them, but this passage aims to break the people of Israel of that idea. First, it assumes that God does not need a temple (though he will eventually have one built for himself) because all creation is his temple. This idea pops up in various places in Scripture, as in our passage from Isaiah 66: God made everything, all of it belongs to him, and he won’t be restricted to just one little house like all the other “gods.” It takes all of the heavens merely to serve as his throne, and all of creation is his temple, and how could any of us have the gall to think otherwise?

Second, we need to understand that the author of Genesis is thinking in precisely these terms. In Genesis 1 we have God building his temple, and in verses 26-27 he resolves to create human beings in his image. In verses 7-9 of our passage this morning, he gathers the dirt in his hands, forms it into an image, and breathes into the nostrils to give the image breath, to bring it to life—just as the priests of Egypt did with their idols; then, having awakened the first human being, God installs him in the temple, in the garden which he has created for the purpose. Creation is God’s temple, and we are his image which he has placed in his temple.

Now, to really get the full significance of this, we need to understand one other thing. You see, in Hebrew, there are two main words for God. One is “Elohim,” which we translate “God.” The interesting thing about this word, incidentally, is that it’s the plural form of the word “god,” and that Hebrew has not just a singular form, meaning one of something, but also a dual form which is used when there are two of something (two eyes, for instance); so the plural isn’t used until there are at least three of something—and this is the form the Bible uses to name the one true God.

Anyway, “Elohim” is the name for God as God, and it’s often used in the OT to emphasize how big and mighty he is, that he can hold all the oceans cupped in his hand, that sort of thing. The other name for him is his personal name; we don’t actually know for sure how it was supposed to be pronounced, because it was so holy a name that the Jews never spoke it, and so they eventually forgot how; our best guess at a pronunciation is “Yahweh.” Where the name “Elohim” tends to emphasize God-above-us, God as the almighty Creator who is beyond our comprehension, “Yahweh” emphasizes his relationship with his people, both as individuals and as a group; this is the name which emphasizes him as God-with-us. As Elohim he is the Most High God; as Yahweh he is our provider, the one who meets our needs.

I say all this to point out the fact that while in Genesis 1, God is referred to throughout as “Elohim,” here in Genesis 2 both names are used: without fail he is “Yahweh Elohim,” emphasizing both his power and greatness and his personal care for his people. The author is trying to tell us here that the God who is mighty enough to create everything simply by speaking is at the same time the God who takes care of his people and wants to have a personal relationship with us. He is great enough to earn our awe, and beside him all our problems shrink into insignificance, yet he is close enough to hear our every whisper and to care about every part of life.

So if this is our God, if all creation is his temple and we are his image, what does this say about us? Well, for one, it denies the modern scientific view that human beings are the next best thing to irrelevant as far as most of the universe is concerned, excepting only our effect on Earth’s environment. The late science-fiction writer Douglas Adams captured this well in his classic book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy when he wrote,

Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

He goes on like that for a while, but I think you get the point. Science has discovered that creation is much, much bigger than the ancient Hebrews thought, and that we are not in fact at the center of it, which is a good thing to have figured out. Unfortunately, scientists have gone from there to conclude that we are exactly as insignificant on the large scale of things as that makes us sound: we are unimportant residents of an unimportant planet in a minor solar system in one part of what is, after all, only one of thousands of galaxies in the universe, none of which would even notice if the day after tomorrow we blew ourselves to kingdom come. We aren’t even a flyspeck to the universe, after all.

Scripture’s view is radically different: we are the purpose of creation. God created the universe to be his temple in order that he could make us in his image and place us here. Now, this isn’t to say that we’re the purpose of creation because we’re so wonderful, nor does it mean that we have the right to do what we like with the rest of the world—which is, after all, God’s temple, not ours; rather, creation exists for us because God created us for a reason. It’s all about how wonderful God is. But because God is wonderful, he made everything that is so he could make us to share it with.

There are two reasons for that. The first one isn’t stated here, but we see it all through the Scriptures: God created us to share his love. Notice that I say “to share his love,” not “to find someone to love.” 1 John 4 tells us that “God is love,” and there is good reason for that. We know as Christians that while God is one, he is also three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that when we speak of God we speak of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; we call that the doctrine of the Trinity. That’s why it’s true to say that God is love: in himself, between the three persons of the Trinity, God loves. The Father, Son and Spirit all love each other deeply, and this was true even before anything or anyone else existed. Thus God didn’t need to find someone to love; rather, the Father, Son and Spirit loved each other and decided to create us so that God could invite us to share in that love, thus making his infinite love infinitely greater by including all of us in it.

As I said, this is not explicit in Genesis 2, but is rather something we learn from reading all of Scripture. It leads, though, to the second half of God’s reason for creating us, which is very clear in this passage: God created us to worship him. After all, that’s the purpose of a temple, right? God shares his love with us, and in so doing he calls us to respond in kind, by loving him and by acknowledging his greatness and glory; which is to say, by worshiping him, as we are doing here this morning. Worship is our first purpose in life, for it is the purpose for which we were made. The Westminster Shorter Catechism, one of the foundational documents of Presbyterian Christianity, declares that our chief purpose is to “glorify God and enjoy him forever”; and John Piper has taken that one further, declaring that we exist to glorify God by enjoying him forever.

That really is the idea here. Worship is a large and deep subject, and we could spend a long time talking about it and only scratch the surface, but at its very core, it’s simple: worship is about making our relationship with God, as a body and as individuals, our primary focus. Everything else flows from that, and any priority which gets in the way of that is a temptation to idolatry, because God created us to worship him—not just to serve him, though that’s important, not just to do certain things, but to enjoy his presence, to enjoy him and celebrate him as the great and wonderful God he is.