Why I Miss Ronald Reagan…
In the end, we have a President who represents and was produced by a corporate greed that barters for oil on foreign soil, defends trade relations with military action, retaliates against the reaction to that infringement with more military action (spinning the reality into simplified Hollywood plot-scenarios) and has robbed the church of it’s identity as the Kingdom of God.
But he does hold a Bible study in the White House. And he prays. Perhaps he should pray for his friends who are standing trial for pump-and-dump frauds that stole millions from their employees, and for his own Vice President who cusses like a sailor, gives his own former corporation multi-million dollar contracts without entertaining other bidders, and mistakes hunting buddies for small birds.
Now here is the point: Bush is not a bad man, misleading and manipulating the church in America for a vote. He is actually, in part, a product of the church. Bush, as afore suggested, nurses upon two teats: corporate America, and Christian America. Ultimately, then, I’ve not given the true reason evangelicals favor Bush. The truth is evangelicals do not support Bush because he is like them; they support him because they created him.
As for Republican presidents, I miss Ronald Reagan. I don’t miss Reagan because he was perfect, he did lie about Iran Contra and played his part in creating the mess we are currently in, but I do miss him because he was nobody’s pawn. He negotiated the end of the Cold War without picking up a gun, he believed in trickle-down economics but understood corporate greed, he had deep-seated beliefs about Democracy, about the beauty (not the perfection) of America, he did not enable members of his own administration, and had the guts to fire failures, he did not see Israel as a good-luck charm of which America could stroke for favor from God, and he liked the idea of God as a benevolent Father who provided for, disciplined and rebuked. He believed America was the shining city and chose for this country to act as a role model for the world. He was not an arrogant man. He was not a weak man. He was not a simple man. He was not a foolish man.
Before running for governor of Texas, Bush lobbied Major League Baseball to become Commissioner of that association. He would have done a great job and been a role model to many in that position. But real life is not a game, and dead people are not points. And nobody, right now, is winning anything.
Things I did not say:
1. Republicans are bad
2. Bush is completely bad.
3. There is no benefit to individuals or the world from corporations.
4. Ronald Reagan was perfect.
5. Trickle-down economics is perfect.
Further reading? Consider American Theocracy by Republican strategist Kevin Phillips.
Things I believe Bush is doing right:
1. He is openly and boldly taking questions from the American people.
2. He is publicly asking America to invest intellectually and financially in alternative sources of energy.
3. He is praying.
4. He is fighting AIDS. A recent Newsweek poll showed that only 3% of Americans are aware that the Bush Administration has more than doubled U.S. spending to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries.
This article also appears at Donald Miller’s website, donaldmillerwords.com.
Posted on May 15, 2006 12:00 AM
Comments
Look at you, going all out on a limb. Kudos.
Posted by: David Allen | May 18, 2006 11:15 AM
The love affair by some in the church over W is spelled out very well in this piece and shown to be a deeper issue than just "he's a Christian like me". Great job-
Posted by: Christian Rossetti | May 22, 2006 5:22 AM
Well-spoken and important criticisms, but I'm troubled by the idea that "the wealthy and conservative evangelical Christians] are quite nearly, binary opposites". While conservatives often dismiss the poor as lazy welfare bums, should we assume the wealthy must hold values which oppose Christianity? I hope I've misread this seemingly black-and-white generalization in an article which addresses W's black-and-white thinking!
Posted by: Luke Woodard | May 25, 2006 9:54 AM
I'm not completely sure how I feel about what you've written. I guess my problem is this: I see more and more in the church today (from all sides) of everyone tearing each other down. We're too busy pointing at each other and criticizing (in an intentionally hurtful way, no less - whether some of us are willing to admit it or not) and I believe we may be missing the point. Let's quit pointing at people and using them of examples of who or what Jesus isn't, and let's start taking positive action, leading by example, and SHOWING people who Jesus IS. Jesus obviously has a heart for the poor and wants us to serve them. Does that tell me to bemoan our government officials because they're not doing that perfectly or does it tell me to get up off my rear and go help someone? And one area that I think is extremely dangerous is the idea of thinking in black-and-white. We can put ourselves on a slippery slope if we're too concerned with thinking in terms of gray areas. Sometimes people (and I'm including myslef in everything I'm writing) want to use "gray area" as a hiding place from tough issues. We must remember that we're called to love and to uphold God's laws, not to be popular or cool. I refer to a comment by Derek Webb on his live album "The House Show" where he says that the gospel by nature is offensive. Jesus was hated by some, and I believe he tells us that we're going to experience the same thing. Anyway, sorry for the long post. You're an extremely talented writer and I enjoy reading your stuff even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you say. But the world would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed about everything.
Posted by: Josh Waggoner | May 25, 2006 9:11 PM
I am a fan of your writing, but the comment you wrote about the Vice President and mistaking hunting buddies for small birds did not seem compassionate or Christ-like, even if it was a joke.
Posted by: Teresa Barnett | May 30, 2006 12:32 PM
I appreciate your efforts to see both sides of things regarding Bush's presidency. However, it makes it easy for people to be skeptical of claims regarding his dishonesty, when the link used to support is a list of cherry-picked quotes (which may or may not be out of context) and broken web links. It makes the evidence seem contrived. Paste a quote along with a random fact about what action a certain committee has taken or not taken, and you have yourself another poorly assembled argument for Bush's failures.
My concern is that it might be impossible to find out what our government is doing most of the time, whether they are Republican or Democrat. Writers and media channels continuously resort to extremes to present their stories and veiled slant about whether Bush is Satan or The Almighty Perfect One. Neither portrayal is accurate, and I appreciate the way you have recognized that in your article.
I have grown increasingly skeptical regarding the government's willingness to be honest with us and the media's ability to know what is going on in our government or speak reality to the public. I've given up listening to the "sound bites" that are offered in the news which bring us no closer to knowing the truth.
I suppose that my only recourse at this point is to do my best to interpret the droning speeches we hear on C-SPAN in an effort to figure out what exactly our government is trying to accomplish.
But who's got the time for that, right?
Posted by: JasonB | June 3, 2006 1:35 PM