But the facts seldom run on a straight line, and there are usually more than two sides to every issue. This is where things get really interesting. Political positions are relative; It is the job of progressives to move the bar, and it’s up to conservatives to hold it steady; thus the tension. But there are no happy mediums. It doesn’t necessarily make you a moderate (or centrist) if you’re not on a particular extreme or if you have mixed feelings about some issues. I’d like to propose that we move beyond the basic political spectrum and think outside that line. If you haven’t familiarized yourself with the Nolan Chart, it’s a great place to start (chart A):

Many of us have a general idea of where we reside on a left/right spectrum. If you want to tax the rich, protect a women’s right to choose, provide more entitlements to the poor, spend more money on public services, increase regulations for the environment and big business, and reduce foreign aggression, then you’re probably a registered Democrat who’s going to vote for Obama. If you want to see all taxes reduced or flattened, you’re against abortion, think we need to cut public spending, reduce the size of government and regulation, free up the marketplace and project our military might, then you’re likely a Republican who’s going to vote…well, against Obama.

Since we have a two-party system, often we get stuck on the left/right continuum. But social freedoms and economic freedoms are two different animals, and having traditional values versus liberal ones doesn’t necessary translate into how powerful or intrusive you want government’s role to be in those arenas. Let’s look at the debate on homosexual marriage, for instance (chart B):

Those with traditional values are increasingly alarmed at what they view as licentious behavior in society, while others who have taken to the street are upset by the gap between the rich and the poor. Politicians are always happy to make promises and pass laws to right such wrongs. This is why the size and scope of government has been shifting the spectrum on another axis—towards statist control (populism, fascism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism). It is nothing new for the political establishment on both sides of the aisle to protect and consolidate their power behind incumbents and those who tow their party line. But we’ve witnessed an unprecedented increase in government spending, which is nothing less than a massive power-grab (all in the name of necessity, of course). The more powerful the government gets—the more money they spend and more laws they pass and regulations they create—the more total their control becomes, resulting ultimately (at the extreme) in totalitarianism…and the death of freedom, plain and simple. We may live in a center-right nation on the horizontal axis, but that whole spectrum is sinking downward toward more government control.

A great example of government expansion and control (combined with liberal sensibilities) was illustrated in the recent passage of so-called “Obamacare”, which we can chart somewhere deep within the lower-left quadrant of chart C:

The opposite of this growing authoritarianism is libertarianism. And it’s no wonder, in light of our current drift away from it, that it’s gaining steam as a movement—coalescing, especially on the right, behind Ron Paul. But from a strictly conservative viewpoint, Paul has some pretty radical views about abolishing whole government agencies and radically diminishing our projected military power throughout the world. And raw libertarianism also advocates legalization of behaviors most Americans consider dangerous to society, such as prostitution and hard drugs…sometimes going so far as to look very anarchist. Is that the solution?

I’d argue that no extreme is either tenable or palatable. Neither the people in government nor people apart from any government are perfect, and thus the need for some balance of power. But this doesn’t mean surrendering to mere moderation or giving up your political power. You have a voice, these issues matter, and there are good reasons for being on one side or the other. So when the already frustratingly complicated political spectrum explodes into two dimensions, what’s a citizen to do?

First of all, decide what’s most important to you. Is a strong central government enforcing justice and making society better your priority (authoritarian), or is liberating a free people with government limited as a necessary evil (libertarian)? Do you mind telling a rich person to pay up and give more of their money to those who need it (liberal), or would you rather tell a homosexual that it’s wrong to marry the person they love (conservative)? It’s obviously much more complicated than that with a variety of factors and issues at stake, but at least try to frame your general values and priorities. You’ll then have a matrix through which to view any new issue or evaluate a candidate. This also may provide common ground with someone who you might view as a political adversary, as well as finding something to rock the boat with all of the homogenous friends of yours who vote the way you do. We want to avoid putting ourselves or others in a box, but sometimes it’s helpful to get a grasp of the context and where we fit in.

Note that this matrix actually can extend farther in every direction (Stalin & Marx would be off the chart, for instance), and for the sake of our reference I’ve honed in on what I consider to be the range of American politics. Here’s my estimate of the current state of our political system (center/leftward-drifting, and downward trending) in juxtaposition to the American electorate (center-right with ample appreciation of government provision, but trending recently toward freedom and leaner government). It also shows why, based on my perception and positions, I’m so often at odds with our president (chart D):

Sometimes it’s hard to settle on a position on every issue, so don’t feel like you have to. Sometimes it’s helpful to at least know what you don’t believe. But then once you know what you stand for, then take a stand. This can be frustrating if the majority doesn’t stand with you or if you don’t have a candidate that aligns with a lot of your views. I’m obviously a firm advocate of thinking and speaking critically in every appropriate forum. But when push comes to pull, I urge that you get out there and pull the lever for the candidate whom you believe is the best viable option to represent and lead. With our precarious economy, declining power in the world, crippling debt level, and the controversy surrounding expanding (yet threatened) entitlements and regulations, no election has been more consequential than the one facing us. And, as I believe we’ll see with any opponent that goes up against Obama in the months to come, never has the choice been so clear on the vast majority of issues…top to bottom and left to right.

To conclude, I’ve taken a stab at charting where the current candidates might fall—with myself included (chart E). All of these charts are my own biased assessments, but they’re no different than any tests that might attempt to pigeon-hole you (and most likely associate you with the candidate of their choice). The single point on the chart indicates where I think they are positioned by their actions and statements leading up to the campaign, while the larger oval shows where they’ve governed from in the past. Note that, though I’ve put Obama on one far extreme by himself, other Democrats could fill that gap between liberal and centrist and most candidates (Paul conspicuously excluded) are in the bottom two-thirds of the matrix due to their role in the continuing expansion of government spending and control to varying extents and in different areas (social and/or economic).

If you disagree, you’re welcome to create your own. American politics is not a spectator sport. I’d love to hear where you’d place yourself on the chart.

Christmas is not a religious holiday, strictly-speaking, and has merged with secular traditions and holidays over the years—leading to traditions like the Christmas tree or Yule logs. But in our country, in recent years, this particular holiday has come under fire by atheists and secularists, in the spirit of political correctness and separation of church and state, and resulted in a more ecumenical “Happy Holiday” season—particularly in commercial marketing. I mistakenly associated this distaste with secularism as a whole, and was thus surprised to find that the much-more-secular Europeans that I encountered on my recent trip abroad celebrated Christmas (not generic holidays) with unabashed revelry and decoration. “Merry Christmas” was everywhere, and no offense seemed to be taken. Like Ricky Bobby in Talladega Nights, it’s comfortable to picture God in perpetual infancy laying in hay and surrounded by animals, blessing everyone with a reason to gather family together and exchange gifts.

So why has so much hay been made in our country in recent years by atheist groups on the march and evangelicals on the defensive in what some call a culture war over Christmas? The American Family Association releases an annual “naughty list” of retailers not properly recognizing Christ’s birth, including Banana Republic and, shockingly, Victoria’s Secret. “If a company has items associated with Christmas, but did not use the word ‘Christmas,’ then the company is considered as censoring ‘Christmas,’” according to the organization’s website. Meanwhile, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (TFFR) is currently petitioning to place a sign next to a Texas town’s nativity display saying: “At this season of the winter solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Happy holidays indeed!

As in most political divides, there are extremists on each side battling for ground—threatening boycotts or bringing lawsuits, while most of us long to celebrate our holidays freely in whatever manner we wish. So why would someone take offense at hearing someone utter the words “Merry Christmas”…or sing “We Wish you a Merry Christmas” at their children’s holiday concert…or place a manger scene or Christmas tree in their town square? I have two thoughts.

The first revelation that was brought to my attention by a liberal friend of mine is more of a sociopolitical issue than a spiritual one:  The moral benefit of the minority. By this I mean that, according to many on the political left, if a person in the minority is offended by something, that offense is greater than it would be if the rolls were reversed. This way of thinking translates to hate-crime legislation that says that if a minority is injured by someone in the majority, that crime is worse than had the crime been committed by a minority. It took me a while to grasp this concept because it runs counter to my belief that justice is blind—that all people are equal in value and all trespasses of justice are equally egregious. But, justice aside, there’s something to be said for having mercy and being sensitive to those who are in a minority—to try to understand a position that you may not have ever found yourself in. This dynamic should not be overlooked, though the implications—especially in cultural mores and legal recognition—are highly debatable.

The second reason, I think, is more significant. What are we really celebrating here, and why isn’t it always received as good news of great joy?

Jesus’ birth was not good news for the political establishment. Upon hearing of the birth of a Jewish King near Bethlehem, King Herod sought to kill Jesus and ordered all baby boys under the age of two to be put to death. Jesus’ birth was not good news for the wealthy, who were given poor odds of entering the Kingdom of Heaven (as the camel through the eye of a needle). Jesus’ birth was not good news for family values, as a boy born out of wedlock announced he came to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Jesus’ birth was not even good news for the religious establishment. After seeing his miracles and enduring rebukes from Jesus, Pharisees and Sadducees alike plotted to kill him…and eventually succeeded. The list goes on until the life of this revolutionary ended with crucifixion on a cross—the most offensive death one could suffer. The followers of this condemned man then contend that he did what no man before or since has done—raised himself from the dead, and then floated up into heaven on his own accord. If that wasn’t enough, we who believe the book that makes these outlandish claims expect him to return to earth—not meek and lowly in a manger this time but, according to the book of Revelation, riding on a white horse with eyes like blazing fire, dressed in a robe dipped in blood and “out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.” Season’s greetings indeed!

For many, the Christmas tradition is about shopping malls, sugar plums, and jolly ol’ Saint Nick. But, as the grinch observed, “Maybe, just maybe, Christmas means a little bit more”. And in this historical and/or spiritual context, the desire to add the sign next to the manger makes a little more sense, doesn’t it? Perhaps some people not willing to believe in a virgin birth or a second coming don’t relish the thought of being struck down by this baby’s triumphant return, or subsequently treaded by “the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” If there is a God—at least a god like this—they’d probably rather not to be visited by him in any form, but would prefer be left alone by him…and by any followers celebrating him. Really the better question may not be why are people offended by Christmas, but rather who isn’t?

Which audience did the angels choose to announce their good news of great joy? The social, economic, political, and religious outcasts working the nightshift as shepherds out in the country. They were busy raising the lambs for slaughter to cover the sins of the others who could afford to buy them, and they were terrified by the appearance of an angel announcing news. But, upon hearing it, they hurried and left their soon-to-be-obsolete flocks, found the baby wrapped in cloths as they were told, and spread the word and the amazement. Meanwhile, a world away, some eastern astronomers considered wise with no vested interest in prophets, genealogy, or a messiah, saw a light shining the darkness. These three so-called kings journeyed across continents to give costly treasures to this little Jewish child, then risked their lives to protect him by evading King Herod and defying his decree.

The subtext of Christmas is that, granted freedom to choose our fate, we long ago messed up this world and isolated ourselves from communion with a holy and concerned creator. But, out of love, our heavenly father (as Jesus introduced him for the first time) condescended to become one of us to live the life we should lived and die the death we should have died. Rather than leave us to our own devices to live our lives as we saw fit—facing a hopeless conclusion—he made a way back to him:  A light shining in the darkness, a spotless sacrificial lamb: the long-awaited savior.

If this appeals to you—if, like the shepherds, you’re not upset at the thought of leaving your life behind to follow a vision and announce it to the world or, like the three kings, you’d be willing to travel around the world because of an anomaly that defies all of your calculations—this holiday’s for you. If you look around and see a world in darkness, and then see hope in a baby as the unique light of this world—a king at whom’s feet you would worship and surrender your greatest treasures—then peace to you on whom his favor rests. With Jesus’ mother Mary, you can sing to the great Shepherd and one true King: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior…His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm.”

But Mary then continues, “He has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.” To those who do not see their need for a savior, who prefer power to servanthood, who are not hungry for more than they have here, and who have so much to give but reject the greatest gift from their maker, this doesn’t sound like good news.

So if you come across someone who’s not feeling so festive this holiday season and doesn’t wish you a hearty Merry Christmas—or even wants to put up a derogatory sign or water down the words to your kids’ favorite Christmas carol in the school program—you might cut them some slack. Maybe they understand the reason for the season better than, say, the local mall with its Santa clause, manger scene, and Christmas sales. And maybe, instead of asserting our agenda to defend our claim on a cultural tradition, our message to them could be of the true spirit of Christmas—good will to men.

One way to summarize my analysis of them is to say that I share a lot of their gripes and concerns. Their “felt needs” are hard to argue against:  unemployment, corporate greed, government inadequacy, a screwed up healthcare system, lackluster education, mortgage defaults, clean energy, and environmental assurances…just to name a few. However, recognizing symptoms doesn’t equal a proper diagnosis. And a good diagnosis is a prerequisite for determining the best means of treatment…for finding a cure for what ails us. It’s at this point that I believe the movement falls far short and in fact could do much more harm than good if it or its sentiments gain traction in the political will of our voting population. In fact, I believe that philosophically, many of these people have more in common with the corporate interests they’re railing against than they realize…as I explain at the end of this article.

There are two common, fundamental concerns that I hear expressed by this movement that I’d like to address, and unfortunately they’re too complex and inexhaustible cover comprehensibly…let alone in one (lengthy) article. So I’ll start here by affirming the point that I hope is taken from this movement—the realization that powerful corporations have colluded with government officials for their mutual benefit in violation of the people’s interests.

I appreciate anyone who calls attention to this devastating reality. But if this is the symptom, what is the cause? Fareed Zakaria, in the latest issue of Time Magazine, cited John McCain, pointing “to the tax code as the foundation for the corruption of American politics.” He went on to say:

“Special interests pay politicians vast amounts of cash for their campaigns, and in return they get favorable exemptions or credits…in other countries, this sort of bribery takes place with cash in envelopes, but in America it is institutionalized and legal, but it is the same—cash for politicians in return for favorable treatment from government. The U.S. tax system is not simply corrupt; it is corrupt in a deceptive manner that has degraded the entire system of American government….The simplest way to get the corruption out of Washington is to remove the prize that members of Congress give away: preferential tax treatment. A flatter tax code with almost no exemptions does that.”

Fareed and I don’t always see eye-to-eye, but on this he is exactly right…expressing views that align perfectly with those of the tea party and, most recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry (among others). George Will argued that with ethics laws and media scrutiny, politics are actually more clean than they’ve ever been, legally-speaking, but only because this aspect has been white-washed by both parties. He says that such “rent-seeking” is the natural consequence of the liberal administrative state “when government decisions allocate great wealth and opportunity, great wealth will be spent on influencing government decision-making.” This is no less natural than water flowing downhill; you can’t legislate the humanity out of people. If money is paper power, people will leverage their power to promote their interests. Mancur Olson noted this phenomenon in The Rise and Decline of Nations, recognizing that as a country becomes increasingly dominated by organized interest groups, it loses economic vitality and falls into decline. This is due to the consolidation of power between government and corporations and the games they must play to keep their balance of power intact.

But tax policy—primarily over income and profits—is just one area where politicians have shown favoritism and wrestled power away from the people. They play a similar game by manipulating production and markets through regulatory power. Originally intended to maintain justice and free commerce, this ever-expanding government power favors certain companies or causes who lobby or contribute for regulations (or targeted deregulation) that favors them over others. Even when the intent if admirable—such as important environmental standards or Obama’s newest proposal for mortgage rate reductions—there are companies who will capitalize (not based on free market forces, but government intervention). And of course there are always unintended consequences to such unnatural intervention…which ironically leads to more calls for government to fix the messes that they’ve created.

If special interests are as distasteful to the left as they claim it is, they would be even more leery of empowering and expanding regulatory power. But the opposite is true; more regulations are exactly what statists and OWS are arguing for…in addition to higher taxes (which take money/power from people and put it in the government’s control). This proves that the goal is not disempowering the government/corporate conglomerate for the public interest (and non-coincidentally, for promotion of liberty and justice), but rather shifting the power away from corporations to more government. With power-broking as the goal, the lesser of the two evils, they must believe, is our democratically-elected government that surely has our best interests at heart…whereas corporations have no heart.

The beauty of democracy is the equal power that our vote shares with everyone else’s. But with capitalism, another great source of power is the dollar, and the distribution of those is anything but equal. No one disputes this fact, but is that reality proof that it is not just? If all people are created equal with equal opportunity, then shouldn’t we all share in our nation’s prosperity equally? Without getting into how poorly this idealistic economic philosophy has fared practically in other socialist experiments around the world and recent history, let’s get right down to it—it’s not fair. People are not the same, their situations are not the same, and their outcome is not the same. It may seem like a noble intent to level not only the playing field but the score and give everyone a trophy while we’re at it, what will that really accomplish? Liberty is overrun by power as it reduces freedom to fairness and self-determination to social welfare.

These lesser ideals require an authority to decide what is fair and what is good for everyone else—what you should be allowed to produce and what you deserve to keep—and impose that on the people. This results in dampened incentive to achieve potential productivity, and the degradation of one’s humanity as a free agent. By contrast, our founding ideals of liberty and justice begin with what our creator has blessed us with (an affirmation of the unique people we are), protect us all equally with laws (to eliminate impediments for success), and reward hard work and productivity (with maximized prosperity for all who contribute).

Democracy does not vindicate oppression. If 51% of the population votes to enslave 49%, does that make it right? It might make it legal, but it does not make it just. Similarly, for 51% of the population to vote themselves out of the responsibility to pay taxes—or to punish successful businesses and force them to pay a certain amount or hire or whatever the populist wishes might be—it does not make it morally right. Whether you democratically elect that authority or claim it at gunpoint and establish a politburo—if you empower it to make these decisions—you take away the power of the individual with every law and regulation. The reason our founders were wise enough to separate the church’s authority from the government is not because morality isn’t important, it was so that no authority would be able to impose its morality on a free people.

Our government was established to protect every person’s liberty, not to ensure every person’s success. An authoritative, intervening state violates the former to promise the latter—a promise it has always and will always fail to deliver. Yet it continues to double-down by consolidating more power than votes alone can supply, so politicians turn to dollars. Dollars, of course, are amoral objects literally made to represent the interests of those who possess them, whereas our representatives are morally-bound to uphold our constitution (which limits their powers) and represent our interests, not their own…or any particular interests, for that matter. If your interest is in your politician’s power to grant you special benefits or advantages—if you’re more concerned with voting in your own self-interest than in the interest of liberty and justice—you are a part of the problem and not the solution, whether you are occupying wall street or lobbying for corporate loop-holes. Laws that grant special tax exemptions or regulatory burdens, like those that grant special benefits or redistribute wealth, are unjust because they show favoritism. They will inevitably lead to corruption—not corruption of wall street’s profit motive, but corruption that our laws can scarcely protect us against within the political process itself. This is the greatest miscarriage of justice, and thus the greatest threat to our freedom.

So, since our president also said it’s time to “eat our peas” and this is coming down to the wire on this particular battle, I brought back the blog to address this conflict head-on—particularly for those of my friends who I know to be bright and fair, but who seem to reflect a common disdain for Wall Street and the wealthy and, perhaps, our entire free market system. And to those of you fed up or disinterested in politics—it’s time to give this a few minutes of your attention, I beg of you. I’m not an economist and I wouldn’t begin to defend corrupt or immoral practices, but I would like to stand up for the system that our president and his party’s leaders are intent to, as he put it, “fundamentally change.”

I just watched a trailer for a new documentary on Bernie Madoff, and it ended with this line:“The basic concept of Wall Street is that, by benefiting one person, you’re disadvantaging another person.” Though this was obviously the case with this criminal, it is not at all true of the free market system, but is instead true of those who now seek to denigrate it.

In principle, free market capitalism is based on trading—I provide you with a good or service, and you provide me with the comparable value for it. It’s a win/win on its face, and the beauty of it is that it also incentivizes growth. Since both parties wish to provide more value on their side of the trade, they work and innovate to produce and provide more, and the prosperity grows. Wealth is not a static quantity and neither, by the way, are the wealthy. Many people who are wealthy today were not wealthy 10 years ago, and they did not become so (in most cases) because of gov’t or ill-gotten gain, but because of this land of opportunity in which we live.

Government-imposed redistribution of wealth (a growing phenomenon endorsed by our president and his party), on the other hand, disincentives both the successful and the so-called impoverished—taking hard-earned (in most cases) money from one party and handing it to those who’s only qualification for earning it is that they have done nothing (produced nothing) to earn it. This is, at best, a lose/win scenario… though I would contend that both sides ultimately lose as this does nothing to encourage or affirm the value of the recipient.

What about fairness? I’m afraid it’s a mirage… a socialist pipe-dream. If you want fairness, you can come whine with my kids and then explain how it could be fair that you should be born here and now at all, and how you should be beautiful or talented or well-loved or educated or quick with a joke. That’s not fair… how can you not feel guilty about it? How can you not provide compensation to others because of it? Because we do not deal the hands, we play with what we are given. We are not the creator or re-creator (driver of evolution) as the progressive dream dictates, we are free agents and stewards of that which we’ve been blessed.

I contend that it is not possible for us to increase equal opportunity while mandating equal outcome—the two are at odds. My previous post, “The Inequality of Equalization”, addressed this issue. In it, I quoted people much smarter than me who affirmed this very thought… Aristotle: “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” Voltaire: “All the citizens of a state cannot be equally powerful, but they may be equally free.” Alexis de Tocqueville: “While democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” In that post, I also addressed the following point….

What about helping people? Is it not enough that the U.S. (non-coincidentally, considering our economic system) has given more and done more to help people all around the world? No… let us do more and do it better, and let us show mercy and love and do so generously and without compulsion (as my faith guides me to do)! I pray “on earth as it is in heaven”, and I’m learning more about what this looks like for the disadvantaged and minorities and the addicted…for “widows and orphans”—those who cannot help themselves. But, huge and crucial though this question of mercy is, it is a separate question from justice. Generosity does not equal progressive tax rates and gov’t programs that create division and dependency through forced “sacrifice”, guilt, and suppression of prosperity.

What about corruption? It’s hideous in all its forms—corporate, political, or personal. And unfortunately we’re seeing it in spades in every sphere. It does not indicate a broken system (as our president indicates), but rather broken people. More transparency, accountability, and justice is what is called for—but only to weed out the corruption, not to stamp out the freedom that inevitably breeds it time and time again.

That initial quote about Wall Street is just one of the many misleading falsehoods spread by our media and our own government leaders about our financial system. I think you’d agree that a majority vote still would not justify oppression or segregation, so why would it justify theft? How can you think that you or I have a right to money that we have not earned (and someone else has). “But the government has a right to tax”, right? Of course it does… for the common good, not for targeted distribution. Equal protection under law indicates that everyone plays by the same rules and receives the same benefits (a flat tax, for instance). This “progressive tax” structure with all its loopholes (benefiting whomever) is the opposite of just, and though it looks nice in moderation, it cannot stay moderated and will only grow to envelope as much as the lower-income voters are willing and able to extract. What is “a fair share” if not an equal percentage?

I read a comment last night—like many I’ve read—that Republicans want to slash government and reduce the help that people get so the poor and elderly will be deprived and the rich can get richer. This is akin to the opposite sentiment I’ve heard on talk radio, for instance—that our Democratic leaders want the U.S. economy to completely collapse so we can have a revolution and institute socialism or some other form of anti-capitalist utopia. Though I have no doubt that there are people out there who wouldn’t mind one scenario or the other, I believe the vast majority—for all their flaws, compromises, or even corruption—want what’s best for our country and the people in it. But their good intentions and even intelligence does not mean they are discerning, or that their ideology will lead to what is best.

Ideology, often a dirty word these days, is just what you believe is ideal in contrast with how you perceive current reality. This comes down to values and priorities—that’s what it’s all about. I heard a woman say on the radio earlier this week that she didn’t understand how any poor person could vote for a Republican. Perhaps it’s for the same reason a rich person can vote for a Democrat—there are some people (and we need more) who vote for ideals, values, and principles instead of just expedient self-interest. In order for this great republic to survive, we need more of those:  We need more people willing to engage and have constructive dialogue to learn from and inform others.

As for me, I believe strongly that where we are currently headed—with the increasing “progressive”-focused class warfare and unbridled spending—is poison to our present and future freedom and prosperity. You may have voted for “change” because of the positive promises of a growing economy, a balanced budget, international popularity, a drawdown of hostilities, government transparency, or bipartisanship… but none of them have materialized. Instead, our president’s promise to fundamentally change our financial system is being pursued at this very hour, by spending (other people’s money… primarily your children’s and grandchildren’s!) to the point that higher taxes are required to pay for more spending and… it’s a never-ending cycle that’s been underway for an entire century but is reaching a fever pitch. We who are trying to preserve/conserve what we believe are the fundamentals that have made this country great are supposed to take a “balanced approach”, which means that the process slows as progressives/liberals only get some of the changes they want to smaller degrees over a longer span of time. But the cycle is not intended to stop until entire industries (auto, healthcare, etc) are overtaken by unelected federal agency regulations and increasing taxes on supposed “fat-cats” (with, again, targeted loop-holes and rebates)—whatever it takes for those who apparently know better to enforce their vision of fairness in our society.

Do we need better regulations? I’d say so… it’s an increasingly complicated world with complicated industries and competing interests. Do we need a cleaner tax-code than either party wants to submit to or commit to changing? Absolutely… it’s been overtaken by special interests that increase government power and decrease fairness. Do we need to help those who lack opportunity or the ability to care for themselves? Of course… the poor we will always have with us, and it is sometimes not their fault and, in any case, still our duty to love them and help them. But, this president’s vision for our country as reflected by the current policies and direction is not what is best for our country—the poor or the wealthy and, more importantly, the cause of liberty and justice for all of us.

Discrimination—or a better word would be discernment—requires conviction of belief that seems hard to come by these days in popular culture. We’ve seen too many crusaders exposed as hypocrites or defeated by adversaries. We’ve practically given up on having elected representatives that actually represent us or govern with integrity. Many of us have sworn off faith in a Bible that seems outdated or a marriage that seems to run out of love or a country that’s extravagant or unjust. We’ve almost lost the will to believe in anything beyond ourselves, or so we might think. But we can’t help but expose our beliefs in greater ideals; we literally can’t live without them. And, as I mentioned in my previous article—despite how politically incorrect or distasteful it is—we all make judgments based on them. But because we’re understandably uncomfortable with the notion of being judgmental—either due to insecurity or the belief that we’ll appear intolerant—we’ve let sound judgment fall into disrepair. Here are a few thoughts that might help us reclaim it:

If we are to judge, then what standard can we use?

Settling on a standard is perhaps the most difficult problem. An endless number of religions vary greatly in their teachings and lead to an endless array of ideals. This can be easily seen in the opposition of fundamentalist muslims to their jewish neighbors (and the Christians who ally with them), as well as within most any single denomination of the Christian church—not to mention between denominations or between Protestants and Catholics. Even with agreement on one holy text, innumerable interpretations are possible. And if you toss out the doctrines at the root of such disputes, you’re left with no existential standard handed down and written in stone. Standards can be extracted from the natural order (such as the perpetuation of the species or the advancement of knowledge) but these beliefs can be held with a religious fervor that leads to just as much strife.

If appealing to the basis of our belief isn’t sufficient, we can appeal to the results. Most philosophies and ideals have a track record, but the problem is that they’re often spotty at best. Combine that with our penchant for seeing history through our own lens, and you’re left with less than reliable evidence. Forecasting results that haven’t occurred is even less helpful (as we’ve seen with the environmentalist movement).

We’ll never all agree on one standard by which to measure values and ideals. So we must use reason, undergirded by evidence, to knit together—or as a basis for the adoption of—an ideology that is practical, meaningful, and can stand up under scrutiny.

Who are we to judge (are we superior or inferior)?

Such an endless supply of ideals and rationales are enough to make a person throw up their hands, but it won’t solve our problems. In the absence of certainty and universal agreement, it’s tempting to either abandon our ideals at the first sign of trouble or to arrogantly (and ignorantly) assert our superiority. But it was not the German people or the radical muslims that were themselves inferior, it was—or is—their ideology. And this is not something that can be invented by some great boon of progress as if we make the rules in this universe. Truth is discovered. That makes us humble recipients. And, unless one of us has gotten it perfectly right on every point, we are flawed recipients—believing (rightly and wrongly) what is real, what works, and what is good about a universe not of our own making. And, if that weren’t enough, a Christian such as myself believes that it can only be discovered if it is revealed by the very hand of God—bestowed based on no merit of our own. Where is the arrogance in that?

But we are all free agents who are born to make our own choices—both in our own lives, and as far as our voice impacts and determines our culture. As the saying goes, “If you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything.” So it’s crucial to develop and maintain the power of your own voice—the significance of your life and the course it takes based on your beliefs. Consider the great leaders who have changed the course of history…now consider their mother and father and close confidant…and if you open your mind up enough, you will realize that everything—and everyone—matters. And if what we do is rooted in what we believe, then our every belief matters.

Who are we to judge? We are the very ones whose beliefs and choices will help determine the course of our life, the lives around us, and ultimately human history.

What are we to do with our judgments?

So, if we choose or devise a sensible, defensible ideological standard and humbly form an opinion that is contrary to someone else’s, what then? On some level, this happens all the time since we’re all different and have diverse perspectives and beliefs. Thankfully, we don’t go into every human interaction with guns blazing, ready to assert our will. Nor need we bow and submit to a daily ideological adjustment. Many of our differences are preferences that have little impact on each other or the world at large, but often our beliefs do lead to actions that do have significance—from how we use our resources to disciplining our children to whom we vote for.

So, what do we do when we’re confronted with that which we deem significant and judge as faulty, wrong, or downright evil? I believe the first principle is to engage, which may run counter to the politically-correct tolerant spirt of our age. 18th-century author Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” And, if you’re the type to take scripture under advisement, the previously mentioned verse in Proverbs 31:9 says in its entirety, “Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” So, we start with verbal engagement—to seek understanding and put forth our ideals. This could change our beliefs or diffuse the conflict. But if not—and if necessary—we do what we must to defend whom or what needs defending. This can hopefully be done diplomatically through persuasion and, in some cases, compromise. In other cases, compromise is inappropriate or impossible and a more assertive stance is called for that may require arbitration, assistance, or even force. In any case, humility and great wisdom is called for if we intend to break the law or trespass the beliefs of another (as our government has the increasing habit of doing).

The prophet Micah tells us “to act justly and to love mercy”, and Jesus instructed his followers to “be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” The point is to do the difficult work of marrying positive, gracious motives with bold action. This applies to corporate action (such as international diplomacy and domestic governance) or to personal relations. There are ideals which lead a man to lay down his life for another man, or to kill another man in defense of something greater. Our lush American lifestyle has spared most of us from facing such difficult choices, but we’re electing men and women who do make such significant choices regularly.

None of us have it all figured out, but let us be good stewards of the lives we’re given and the meaning that it has. Let us not be foolish, but to seek and to find—and ultimately to believe—the truth. And then, with humble determination, let us act on that of which we are convinced. We cannot afford to lose our bearings and, consequently, to let our country lose its way.

John Mayer’s song “Belief” states wisely that “everyone believes in how they think it oughta be”, but then goes on to say in the chorus: “We’re never gonna beat this if belief is what we’re fighting for” and refers to belief as “the chemical weapon for the war that’s raging on inside”. So it would seem he’s not a fan of ideology either. But that’s his belief, isn’t it?

Scientifically-derived facts are important and experience is invaluable, but these factors alone are not enough to guide us; only belief lights our path and sets us on our course. Whether it’s a survival instinct or a result of the fall, we’re all born with an innate knowledge of good of evil—and the desire to discern between the two. We judge because, from a very young age, every action and belief of our own was either judged outright or was put to the test in the real world. We judge because all beliefs are not equal and they have consequences. To believe otherwise is the very definition of foolishness. Job 34:4 says, “Let us discern for ourselves what is right; let us learn together what is good”, Proverbs 8:5 says, “You who are foolish, gain understanding”, and Proverbs 31:9 says, “Speak up and judge fairly.” It’s unlikely that Jesus was placing a moratorium on critical thought and discernment; nor should we.

I recently watched a period movie called “The Good German” which was set in post-World War II Germany. Now I know that Adolph Hitler is an easy target in all arguments of objective morality (for he alone debunks the myth that all beliefs are equally valid), but I’ve always been more disturbed by the people of Germany. How could an entire nation be led on such a horrific course to enslave, abuse, and ultimately exterminate an entire race—while in the process of attacking their neighbors en route to world conquest? Instead of the jews, was it actually the German people who were inferior to buy in to such a terrible ideology? Or were they so downtrodden and victimized that they should be excused for their evil actions? It’s the same question that’s asked of radical islamic fundamentalists that resort to terror. Are they evil…inferior…or pitiful victims of poverty and political oppression? And does it really matter what they believe if they’re trying to blow up you and your children?

To bring the matter closer to home, we should realize that the powers that be in our country are driven by one of two things—ideological beliefs (wielding their power) or political survival (keeping their power). Despite the base pettiness of the latter, for some reason the former seems to get the lion-share of criticism. Politicians love to talk out of both sides of their mouths and make compromises to give the impression that they are bipartisan and open-minded in an attempt to please everyone and, tragically, it often works. The broader and more vague a campaign slogan is, the better (who can argue with “hope” or “change”?). But the bottom line is that all of them went to Washington with an agenda based on their particular beliefs—beliefs that went beyond just executing the will of their constituents for their best interests. At their best, they are leaders who are inspired by and inspire the spirit of the people, listening to their constituents but working with integrity to do what they believe is best. All too often, though, they will stop at nothing to advance their beliefs, going behind closed doors and cutting deals and telling you whatever you need to hear. They will resort to manipulation and would prefer your own ignorance or insanity to the kind of grounded opposition that would threaten their cause. Like many of the professors who infest our higher institutions of learning, they wish to tell you what to think rather than to appeal to what’s best within you—to inspire you to think for yourself.

Those we have granted power over our lives have (or once had) a vision for how society and government should function, what our country’s role should be in the world, and so forth. All issues will be seen through their ideological prism (whether its based in fairness, freedom, social justice, or true equality) and the votes they cast have the potential to change our country and the lives of you and your children. People ask me why I care so much or why I have such strong opinions, but the better question is how can you not? If you believe our environment is headed toward catastrophe, how can you sit idly by and watch companies and individuals pollute for profit and convenience? If you believe abortion is murder, how can you sit idly by while government uses your money to fund it?

Unless we become utterly indifferent (negligent and cowardly), our refusal to face facts and discern between contrary beliefs does not exempt us from making judgments, it only leads to faulty judgment—and often to one of two extremes:  rationalization or condemnation. Victims are justified if their actions can be rationalized or if their rationale is, perhaps, beyond our understanding, while we condemn that which we rashly deem inexcusable. Perhaps this is why there seemed to be more of an outcry from the left in this country against George W. Bush than there was against terrorists during his war on terror. Whatever the case, the approach, or the basis of our beliefs, we must face the reality and necessity of judgment between contrary ideals and beliefs. And, in doing so, we would do well to gain the wisdom necessary to avoid the extremes by learning to discern responsibly and in the light of—and pursuit of—the truth.

It’s hard for me to imagine an argument against this rational, but it’s easy to see the challenges with its implementation. If we are to judge, then what standard can we use? And who am I to judge (do I think I’m superior)? And won’t making a judgment then obligate me to actually do something about it?

These are hard questions (which I’ll address in part 2 of this article), but they don’t get us off the hook. We are unique, free-agents given the responsibility and privilege of governing our own lives and making choices—based on our beliefs—that affect our lives and the lives of those around us. And, thanks to our democracy, our burden extends to the greatest superpower the world has ever known. When vital freedoms are on the line, wars are being fought by our children on the other side of the world, and if the environment doesn’t ruin us than saving it will, we can’t afford to vote “present”. When politicians forsake their beliefs to sell-out our interests or disguise their beliefs to maintain their power, we can’t afford to vote straight-ticket ignorance. And when the rights afforded to the enemies in our midst who are plotting to kill us are valued more highly than the lives of our own citizenry, we can’t afford to put political-correctness above the sense that suddenly seems uncommon.

It’s high time we recognize and give greater thought to the beliefs that we live by as well as those that govern those who govern us. It is not up to us to judge the souls of men, but it is entirely appropriate—even incumbent on us—to judge their performance and, more significantly, their worldview. It is this investment and accountability that has made our union strong. And it is our culture’s long-standing beliefs that have made us prosperous. If we do not make our own choices, then others will decide for us.

Albums:

1. The Outsiders, needtobreathe

There’s hardly a song on here I don’t love…and every other song is like an anthem that would be a high-point on most other albums.

2. Everybody, Ingrid Michaelson

This is a close second. I’ll let you know next year at this time if I get tired of any of these songs after listening to them many times a week.

3. Songs that Duke Wrote, Ben Rector

One of many fantastic artists introduced by BriteRevolution.com in this, their inaugural year.

Honorable Mentions:

“Wake Up Love” by Melanie Penn – It hasn’t actually been released yet (such is a perk of living in Nashville)…take my word and check this new artist out!

“Resurrection Letters: Volume II” by Andrew Peterson – another beautiful album in a long line of great works

Movies:

1. The Hangover

It’s embarrassing to have something this base as my top movie, but it was comedic genius

2. (500) Days of Summer

Creative and authentic with excellent structure, performances, and dialogue

3. Star Trek

The perfect reboot/sequel with appeal far beyond Trekkies and even sci-fi (can we try the same treatment to the Star Wars franchise next?)

Honorable Mentions:

“Inglorious Bastards” – Not at all what I expected…so compelling that you almost believe (or wish?) it was true

“District 9″ – Completely unique, a compelling story in it’s own right, but a powerful moral tale about racial discrimination

Songs:

1. Alright With Me, Kris Allen

By far my favorite song on this talented artist’s debut album…just plain fun

2. Summer Nights, Rascal Flatts

“Let that igloo cooler mark your piece of paradise”…the perfect summer ditty

3. Tennessee Line, Daughtry

Southern rock ballad featuring one of the best rock voices with the best country harmonizer there is (Vince Gill)

Honorable Mentions:

“Rocket” by Andrew Peterson – Great rhythm, storytelling, harmonizing, and meaning

“Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)” by Beyoncé – Undeniably one of the best pop songs of the decade

TV Shows:

1. Big Bang Theory, CBS

I don’t know why nerds are so funny, but the writing is second to none…Sheldon steals the show

2. Lost, ABC

I’ve never looked forward to a show this much…the imaginative depth is philosophically and narratively amazing

3. 30 Rock, NBC

Clever and frequently hilarious

Honorable Mentions:

Glee (FOX) – I don’t really watch it faithfully, but it’s all my wife talks about…American Idol meets High School Musical meets Fame

Community (NBC) – Hilarious ensemble with a feel-good (and rare) moral

The thesaurus outlines two definitions of equality which clearly delineate between two warring philosophies:

equality, n.

1. equal opportunities, fairness, equity, impartiality, evenhandedness, justice

2. parity, similarity, comparability, likeness, uniformity, consistency

Though these two definitions are similar and both positive concepts, you may be surprised to know that they are mutually exclusive, practically speaking. Barring a perfect world in which all people are completely equal, granting them equality (in the first sense) will not result in equality (in the second sense). So, to achieve equality (in the second sense), you must forsake equality (in the first sense) to even things out.

This is why progressives such as Harry A. Blackmun, Supreme Court Justice and author of author of Roe v. Wade, say things like this: “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” But, the obvious irony aside, is this what the founders had in mind? And, in either case, which of these two concepts is more important and fundamental to the success and progress of our society?

President Obama has noted this dichotomy and clearly given us his answer to both questions in a radio interview from 2001. He acknowledged the success that the civil rights movement had in investing formal rights to previously dispossessed people, but he lamented that “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” He went on to find fault in the court at that time, regretting that “it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers and the constitution” and that “one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was” that it didn’t bring about “redistributive change”.

Barack Obama essentially referred to this distinction between two disparate concepts of equality—lauding a more expanded granting of equality (version 1) through the civil rights movement, but noting that it did not result in his ideal (version 2). He also made reference to the constraints that the constitution places on our laws that prohibit them from forsaking equality (v.1) for equality (v.2).

The fundamental constraint is perhaps found most clearly in the 14th Amendment, which pronounces that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This concept of equal protection under the law holds that we are all subject to the law’s constraints and that no laws should target or exclude any individuals or groups. As Thomas Jefferson declared of government activities, “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none”. This is virtually the definition of justice, but it has been all but forsaken by today’s lawmakers.

Those who disregard (or I’m sure they would prefer to say reinterpret) equal protection under the law believe that law is not meant to protect our freedom and equality (v.1), but rather to insure equality (v.2) by granting special benefits to particular groups. One obvious example is our progressive tax structure which taxes different income brackets at different rates. It’s not equal for the wealthy to pay 33% while a less wealthy person may pay 0%, but it is equalizing in its effect. You may split hairs and say that everyone’s first ten grand is taxed equally—and that is true. But few of the programs that benefit only certain individuals can claim such a technicality. To modern, progressive sensibilities, this may seem completely fair. In fact, both parties jump in the game when it’s politically advantageous for catering to their special interests. But this is not what the founders had in mind.

But perhaps the founders got it wrong. Perhaps President Obama is right when he references this unfortunate constraint in our constitution—would it not be better or more noble for us to go beyond equality of opportunity to enforce, when possible or practical, equality of results? As I referenced, this shift is well underway in our nation’s politics, but the most recent (and, not coincidentally, quite costly) social programs being advanced mark a seriously throttled-up approach to this progressive change. It would seem it is no longer enough to grant all Americans equal access to healthcare (which all theoretically have the opportunity to acquire via private insurance or independent wealth), we’re to actually provide it for them—preferably (according to the President and many members of Congress) through a single-payer (read: uniform) government-run system.

Such measures are known as advancing “social justice” when the opposite is true. For lady justice to forsake dispensing her fairness neutrally and without passion or bias and instead remove her blindfold—as it was said of our new Supreme Court Justice, to display compassion unique to a particular people group or perspective—is not justice at all. It is subjective. And though today’s standards and the calculations of the powers that be may be suitable to your taste, there is no guarantee that such (in)justice would be dispensed in the same manner years from now.

This is not to say that mercy and charity don’t have a crucial role in our society, for indeed they are indispensable values as well that are crucial to our nation’s health and prosperity. Social justice as a cause (though inappropriately named) is noble if it’s not associated with the abuse of government power. In other words, voluntary giving should be commended. Innumerable charities, relief efforts, and private benevolence have done enormous good to countless Americans. But it’s difficult to make such a case for all of the government’s expenditures—particularly when you weigh the costs versus the benefits.

Though government is capable of helping people, it can be argued that the war on poverty, for instance, has been less successful even than its war on drugs. Government is powerless to eliminate the problem and often aggravates it by dispensing with individual responsibility and creating cycles of dependency—a scenario that, in spirit at least, bears no resemblance to equality. Most importantly, however effective social and economic assistance has been in the past, it cannot be sustained without a robust economy. Such prosperity has historically only occurred through a free market system unencumbered by the weight of excessive taxation and regulation necessary for ambitious progressive agendas (the likes of which we are witnessing now). Or, as Margaret Thatcher is credited as saying, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Voltaire rightly said, “All the citizens of a state cannot be equally powerful, but they may be equally free.” And perhaps Alexis de Tocqueville, a French Historian and Political Scientist from the 19th century, had those words in mind when he applied them more specifically: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” While our constitution is a constraint on the government’s power to enact equalization, equalization requires an unencumbered government to manage it’s ends through the means of restraining equal opportunity (read: freedom). And it must do so by robbing from the rich and diminishing the prosperity of the successful to the sole benefit of those who have not earned such good fortune. Unfortunately, in modern America, this is as familiar as it is convoluted. So perhaps Alexis right when he also said that “Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” Our fathers didn’t die for that.

Freedom is often messy, and it would seem that equality is as well. For though we love to claim that all men are created equal, we are certainly not all the same—either in essence or in our circumstances. As I alluded to before, I’m very sympathetic to the needs of Americans who are disadvantaged whether it be through disabilities or from socioeconomic obstacles that are very real and, in some cases, formidable. These are challenges that a caring society will not disregard and should be addressed with great care and diligence. It is good to help those who truly cannot help themselves, but a far better thing to help make that group smaller and smaller in number. In other words, we may lead a man to water and, to mix metaphors, teach a man to fish. But we cannot—and should not attempt to—dictate the outcome.

In the words of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” We cannot maintain equal opportunity while mandating equal outcome. And considering the ends and the means of the government’s attempts at equalization, may we invoke any constraint that would restrain our politicians from whatever “redistributive change” that suits their fancy today. For what will be redistributed is the compensation of the successful, who will then be forced to invest in government expansion rather than in jobs, products, or other successful ventures that make our country stronger. And what will be changed is your very liberty and the incentive you have to better your life and the lives of your children. An unrestrained government will trade out your freedom for bondage and dependency, and change this great nation into one grand social experiment doomed to fail as it forsakes justice to achieve equally-dispensed despair.

Most of us are familiar with the stigma of racial bigotry sometimes associated with southern conservatives, and there’s even a bigotry of the religious variety against unbelievers who choose not to live according to the traditional values of the religious right. But today, the bigotry that is perhaps most prevalent in our culture is levied against religious believers by those who not only reject their ideology, but refuse to abide those who profess it. In a nation that is becoming increasingly polarized, this intolerance is divisive and destructive to both our social fabric and our intellectual discourse.

The chief peddlers of anti-religious bigotry are intellectual elites who are devoted to a secular worldview that does not allow for any notions of God, the supernatural, or religious doctrines. But you don’t have to debate university professors or media moguls to be confronted with their way of thinking; you can find it in any number of conversations about faith (as it relates to church or philosophy, etc.), physical sciences (as it relates to evolution or abortion), sociology, politics, and so forth. If you take a position which is in any way informed by a faith tradition or “holy” text, you are opening yourself up to the ridicule of those who do not subscribe to any such reference point.

Timothy Keller, in his book The Reason for God, states that there are three approaches used to degrade respect for religious thought and marginalize those who prescribe to it—outlawing it, privatizing it, and condemning it.

The outlawing movement is, in our country, most notably rooted in the concept of separation of church and state. Despite politically-correct hype in this arena, the founders never advocated exclusion or discrimination against faith or religious thought in the political sphere, but rather called our lawmakers to be indiscriminate and not recognize any particular faith or tradition. And, as anyone who has visited most any monument in Washington D.C. would realize, many of the precepts on which our government was founded are based on religious beliefs as explicitly expressed by our founders—not to mention just about every President since then. To attempt to outlaw or bar religious thought—or any particular strain of thinking for that matter—from the public sphere would be a terrible irony, and it has no place in our free society. You should remain uninhibited to think what you want about religion—practice it or don’t practice it as liberally as our laws can allow—and enable others to do the same.

Those who push to privatize faith take a similar approach—desiring to keep all religion and religious thought and expression out of the public sphere. It may not be outlawed, but it is viewed as inferior or irrelevant. This is particularly common for otherwise tolerant relativists who happily tolerate contrary beliefs until they butt up against their own. For this reason, evangelism is taboo—as well as any moral or political argument that has any basis in faith. If evangelism itself was truly a problem, today’s climate change activists would be the first to be condemned. But since their position is based on scientific theories, they have the philosophical right-a-way according to secular thinkers. This is an understandable preference for them, but it does not justify condemnation of any and all alternate viewpoints.

And that brings us to the real rub—condemnation of all things religious. This is quite a broad condemnation first of all, not only because of the sheer numbers of people who claim to be religious, but also because of the broad range of belief systems out there. Zen Buddhists don’t really believe in God and Hindus don’t believe in the supernatural; some religions are not mutually exclusive and some do not require certain practices or beliefs for salvation (heaven, nirvana, or the like). Keller, therefore, sums religion up as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing.” It’s hard to separate this from philosophy, and for that I would introduce the element of faith—that which we are willing to believe without certainty or proof. I believe this element is the true target of religion’s antagonists.

Though many would contend there is a substantial difference in degree, it must be noted that we all live our lives by faith—faith that the new cereal we try is not poisonous, faith that the people driving in the opposing lane of traffic will not veer into our lane, faith that our vehicle is constructed in such a way and the laws of nature are such that our car will stop at a crosswalk and let the pedestrians walk safely across, and…these are just a few examples you might run across on the way to work. That is what you may call small-”f” faith, not because of what’s at stake (people’s lives in every case) but because of the observed, repetitive data. Small though they may be, it’s difficult to make a philosophical distinction between such common exercises in faith and the one that leads you to develop a conviction about, say, morality.

Whether or not you believe in objective right and wrong is based on both observation of behavior and consequences as well as, presumably, some type of philosophical or religious teachings or suppositions. And, when you’re considering religion (or the lack there of), you can’t escape the mysteries of the origin of the universe, which will inevitably lead to a clash between science (which, though concrete, is very limited) and the supernatural (abstract but theoretically limitless). You are free to reject or adopt a big-bang theory leading to our evolution or a seven-day creation from intelligent design, but in either case you will have to contend with the reasonable objections and, necessarily, to bridge any mysteries (and there are bound to be many) with faith. To deny all faith, ironically, requires enormous faith in your own intellect and in the alternate basis of your beliefs—be it science, personal experience, or whatever your bag may be.

It is no secret that atheists are convinced that religious people are devoted to myths and fairy tales no more valid than Santa Clause or greek mythology, and some see no difference between Branch Davidians and Mainline Presbyterians. And it goes without saying that many religious believers are convinced that infidels are lost, disobedient, and very possibly headed to eternal damnation. So, if you put these two groups in a room and ask them to be honest and open with one another, it could get ugly. But we should recognize that these are both legitimate (though unfriendly) positions. And we shouldn’t expect either side to believe differently about the other based on what their faith dictates. We all hold views of the world that will inevitably clash with opposing viewpoints, and it’s entirely appropriate to think critically and hold beliefs and articles of faith up to scrutiny—judging them for consistency and against observable, certifiable truth. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t admit, with humility, that on many points we could be wrong and that our faith could be misplaced. And it doesn’t mean that we can’t maintain respect and tolerance towards those who believe differently than we do.

So, if you hold firm to a set of beliefs—be they religious or otherwise—know that you are among the faithful, and therefore in danger of looking down on those who don’t share your devotion to your god, science, or philosophy. And if you are agnostic or give little thought to figuring it all out, you still have a worldview which may lead you to be suspicious or disrespectful towards people who make claims of conviction.

By marginalizing or shutting out those we disagree with, we are treating them as “less than”, and we’ll inevitably come across as arrogant and obnoxious. We’ll also rob ourselves of the growth that we can experience by broadening our horizons and strengthening or refining our stance.

Why can’t we all get along? The bigotry normalized by our secular culture isn’t helping. Since we’re not all going to agree, tolerance needs to come back in vogue and be consistently applied to the broad range of views and creeds in our diverse society.

We’re feeling the Pluribus, but where is the Unum? The problem is that our current political turmoil we’re seeing in our nation goes deeper than the mere ideology coming to bear on specific issues such as healthcare or the war on terror. It encompasses a broader historical perspective as well as the very personal notion of our national identity. It boils down to what makes us American, and begs the question:  Is that notion—historically and practically—worth preserving? And is it being threatened?

An excellent basis for this discussion centers on the notion of American Exceptionalism, a theory that America holds a special, unique place in the scope of history and global politics. The authors of “Understanding America” contend that “America is indeed exceptional by any plausible definition of the term.” They support this thesis by highlighting our emphasis on individual rights, decentralization, and suspicion of government authority; our diversity of immigrants and high fertility rates; the strength of private entities and a robust nonprofit sector; and our competitive, flexible, and decentralized economy. This is not an absolute theory with an indisputable definition, but it’s a belief based on our innumerable accomplishments in political, economic, and social spheres—in contrast and by comparison with other nations of the world within historical context. And it’s a belief in the common values that unite us with a bond that is stronger than our differences.

Note that a belief in American Exceptionalism does not equate with a belief that Americans are superior to other people groups or individuals. It does not justify ethnocentrism or imperialism, or qualify us as exceptions to any moral standards (despite the examples of our politicians). And it does not set us above criticism or beyond the benefits of progress. It is a descriptive term, but a significant one nonetheless—vital to our cultural cohesion and political continuity.

It’s clear to see how a belief in American Exceptionalism and conservatism go hand-in-hand. For if America is exceptional, the qualities that set it apart are worth conserving. But despite the hype, just as conservatives don’t oppose all progress, so liberals don’t completely ignore our heritage. Historically, liberals have not disregarded the conservation of our most vital values but instead strive to build on our nation’s strong foundation while seeking to make improvements—quite successfully at times. The civil rights movement is an obvious example of forming a more perfect union—applying our most basic values to what we now see as an obvious, destructive blind spot in our social fabric. But this is very different than fundamentally changing the foundation on which this nation has developed. Taking liberties with our traditions and reinterpreting the application of our values may be too liberal for a conservative’s taste in some cases, but it’s very different than reorienting our values to align more with other those of other nations than with our own traditions—the very traditions that have afforded us such freedom.

Here are two broad examples of our president’s abandonment of american exceptionalism—in the international and domestic arenas:

Apologizing for our abuses is very American, but apologizing for the strength that enabled such abuse is not. When our president addresses the UN and states his desire for a new world order that diminishes our role and influence, he is denying American Exceptionalism. I applaud efforts to consolidate support and improve relationships with other countries, but we can pursue that while maintaining a position of strength. Obama, at least with his rhetoric, seems ready to equate our interests with the mutual interests with the rest of the world, leaving us to question his appreciation for our own unique values. Is it merely a coincidence that Hugo Chavez, Moammar Gaddafi, and Fidel Castro are so complimentary of President Obama? He has stated on the world’s largest stage (before the UN) that we wants our country to be an equal partner—and the recipient of a shared fate—with the rest of the world. This would amount to assimilating our values, relegating our responsibilities, and pooling our prosperity. Considering the complexion of foreign governments with regard to political and social justice and freedom—not to mention their lack of economic prosperity—do we really want to go “all in” with the rest of the world by submitting our future to such a shared fate? Though he’s indicated as much, let’s hope this is not really his goal.

Criticizing our own corruption is very American, but condemning our system as inherently corrupt is not. When our president announces his desire to fundamentally change our economic foundation, he has rejected American Exceptionalism. I don’t defend greed or support unabated consumption, but I reject the popular assertion that our economic system is rooted in these base principles or that profit is a foul motive. As with his expressed approach to the American healthcare system, he has scarcely even offered lip-service to our success and prosperity, let alone measures that would protect and preserve our good fortune and medical advancements by expanding freedom within the market. He has all but condemned capitalism as the greedy exploitation of cheap labor and precious resources—subject to the ultimate control of the government. When America, via freedom, fails to “deliver on its promises” (which have been distorted to mean uninterrupted growth—free of any failure), then government apparently can and will step in and save the day. But at what cost? Bailing out industries and nationalizing companies may have historical precedent, but scarcely in this country. And it bears little resemblance to the privatization of capital that has built the success of our economy. With three of the five pillars of our new economy that President Obama has proposed based in government spending and one relying on government regulation, only one (which has yet to show any fruit) aims at reducing government spending. The result is the growth of government power and the reduction of our liberty. Why else, in the name of economic stimulus, would Congress choose to increase its spending by nearly a trillion dollars rather than, say, granting a tax holiday to our citizens? The primary difference is where the control—the power—resides, and the choices of this president continue to be with the government rather than with the people.

This administration supports some positive goals, but we continue to see the emphasis placed on the role of the government rather than the people in private enterprises and (non-political) non-profit organizations. From economic growth to environmental improvement to community service, positive measures have been alloyed with political aims of socioeconomic equalizing, leaving critics to wonder if the expressed initiatives (which may gain public support) are just a means to the ends of subversive political aims (such as those expressly espoused by some vocal Obama supporters).

To defend the administration, it’s easy to point to the worthwhile values that Obama and his progressive compatriots do espouse. While I’m severely critical of most of his agenda, I don’t doubt that he’s a man of conviction and that he wishes well for the people of our country (and, he would surely add, the world at large). From healthcare to social justice to international relations, clearly we can agree on many problems that need to be addressed and some common goals that we would all share. But that doesn’t mean that we share a common vision for America. And the fundamentals of this vision are a non-negotiable for those of us who love our country, for they are what has made us exceptional.

It’s no fun standing in opposition to my leadership—to the president of the country that I love. But when he speaks of fundamental change, it’s like dad’s just looked at mom and said, “I love you,” but then proceeded to tell her all of the ways she must fundamentally change to be acceptable to him and all his friends. I’m one of the many who was proud of my country long before Barrack Obama was elected President, so pardon me if I’m not feeling the love. And, fortunately for us, this “dad” is a citizen like the rest of us. Sure, he convinced just over half of the voting bloc—by proclaiming hope in America—that he’d bring positive change and thereby got himself elected President. But in just a few years, hopefully we’ll find someone else who can deliver on that hope—one truly rooted in what is most most vitally American—while still loving our country just the way she is:  America the beautiful.