Category Archives: Political culture

Going what?

According to the BBC Web site, Sarah Palin has released a memoir titled Going Rouge. Then I read a blog post by Jim Macdonald at Making Light that pointed out a typographical error on the CNN Web site, which he quoted as follows: “In excerpts of her new book ‘Going Rouge: An American Life’ that we….”

I stopped and read it again. That’s not a typo, that’s just the title of the book, I said to myself. Finally it sunk in: I had read the title wrong. Sarah Palin, who sees herself as a rogue who uses rouge, titled her book Going Rogue. But she is no more of a rogue than Winnie the Pooh, who is cute and cuddly and a bear of little brain. Whereas Sarah Palin obviously does use rouge. And the phrase “going rogue” has an odd sort of sound to it; it doesn’t sound like something an American speaker of English would ordinarily say. No wonder I made the mistake.

It’s too bad she gave the book that title; it will inevitably be misread; there is already a parody version of the book which is indeed titled Going Rouge. Unfortunately, this little incident makes me want to compare Sarah Palin to another hapless vice presidential type: Dan Quayle. Which actually makes me feel bad.

Been there.

I heard on the news tonight that the national unemployment rate is up over 10%, the highest unemployment rate since 1983. That’s the year I graduated from college. I think that experience has shaped my assumptions about jobs and careers ever since:– I assume that I will not be able to find a good job, or any job at all, and I assume that finding a job is in large part a matter of luck.

I’ve been wondering about the people who will graduate from college this year. How difficult will it be for them to find a job? How will the recession shape this assumptions of this year’s graduates? And I wonder how this year’s college graduates will cope with their student debt. My final year of college cost a mere $7,000 — about $15,000 in 2008 dollars — but today that college now costs something like $50,000 per year. What will it feel like to enter the job market during the current era of high unemployment, when you have perhaps $100,000 in student loans to pay off?

Those subversive Unitarians, the way they go about freely associating…

Below you’ll find an excerpt from Violations of State Department Regulations and Pro-Castro Propaganda Activities in the United States, Part 2: Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-Eighth Congress, First Session, July 1 and 2 and August 5, 1963 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 474-475. Whatever you think of Mr. Randolph and his politics, what stands out for me is that the Palo Alto Unitarian Church was creating an open space for free association — James Luther Adams, one of our most prominent Unitarian theologians, contended that the freedom to associate was one of the best ways of keeping fascism at bay. (And yes, I know Castro’s Cuba was not very strong on the freedom to associate in 1963 — again, please be sure to separate Mr. Randolph’s politics, and Mr. Castro’s politics, with the actions of the church committee.) Continue reading →

Freelancer’s Union

I just joined the Freelancer’s Union. This is a non-traditional union — it’s not focused on a single industry, instead of dues it charges fees for services. Yet as a union, it gets directly involved with the political process to fight for rights of workers. So, for example, about 30% of the U.S. workforce can currently be classified as freelance workers, yet our health insurance system is designed so that employers provide health insurance only to workers who are permanent employees. Freelancers (all the way from day laborers to high-priced consultants) may find themselves either unable to get health insurance, or forced to pay far more per individual than big employers do.

I joined the Freelancer’s Union because in many ways clergypeople function as freelancers. Yes, I’m a full-time permanent employee right now, and yes I’m lucky enough to work for a congregation that provides me with adequate health care — but lots of Unitarian Universalist ministers (and clergy of all faith traditions) are not so lucky. In my case, I do belong to a professional association, the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association (UUMA), but frankly the UUMA useless when it comes to helping me with things like health insurance, and advocating for me in the political arena. Indeed, the only reason I belong to the UUMA is that I am required to do so to stay in fellowship with the Unitarian Universalist Association — other than that, the UUMA is a useless drag on my professional expenses.

So I’m putting the word out to other clergypeople I know — think about joining the Freelancer’s Union. It’s a national membership organization for independent workers, and we think independent workers should ahve the same rights as traditional workers. We’re a big political constituency, and we can organize around issues, and make politicians listen. It’s all about working together to make all of our lives more secure. Check it out, and see what you think.

Are you a tenner or a twelver?

The big question in certain California circles right now is whether you are a tenner or a twelver; that is, do you think we should try to pass a ballot measure reversing Prop 8 (and restoring the right to same-sex marriage) in 2010, or in 2012?

The Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry (UULM) recently released a “pastoral letter” outlining their position as twelvers. While certainly UULM’s position will annoy some people who are tenners, if you read the actual letter you’ll find it to be carefully considered. UULM points out that one factor they took into consideration is the changed economic climate, which “has ripped holes in the fabric of essential human services.” I would state this more bluntly: in the middle of the Great Recession, with the unemployment rate rising, would you rather donate money to overriding Prop 8 (knowing that millions and millions of dollars from opponents of same-sex marriage will pour into Caligornia), or would you rather donate your money to food banks and poverty relief programs? UULM offers additional pragmatic reasons why we should wait until 2012, and it’s worth reading their letter.

You will not be surprised to learn that I myself am a reluctant twelver. I call myself a reluctant twelver, because I would prefer to see religious marriage separated from marriage as a civil contract. In the mean time, I hope we can postpone the fight to overturn Prop 8 until 2012. If someone puts it on the ballot for 2010, I guess I’ll have to roll up my sleeves and fight tooth and nail to overturn Prop 8 next year — but I hope it doesn’t come to that.

“Race mixing is communism”

My friend E pointed me towards a photograph that has been widely shared on the Web — a black and white photograph dating from 1959, showing a group of people outside the state capitol in Little Rock, Arkansas, protesting integration of the public schools. The protesters are holding signs that read “Race Mixing is Communism,” and “Stop the Race Mixing / March of the Anti-Christ.” Coincidentally, I’ve recently been looking through the Atlas of 20th Century History by Richard Overy (New York: Harper Collins, 2006), in which I happened to read the following sentence: “Many of those who hated communists hated Blacks as well” (p. 108). This reminded me that Ronald Reagan’s first campaign for presidency emphasized not only the fight against communism (the “Evil Empire” as his campaign called it), but also “state’s rights,” which in those days was a kind of political code word for opposing federal desegregation efforts.

While accepting the historical reality that anti-communism and segregationism were linked in the minds of at least some Americans, I remain unable to explain how the two are linked. Of course, liberal Web pundits offer plenty of explanation of how anti-communism and segregationism are linked, but such explanations are merely ad hominem attacks larded with such terms as “Retardlicans.” Notwithstanding such idiocy, somewhere there must be a considered and serious historical explanation of this link.

Clean elections

I just attended a meeting titled “Palo Alto Passion-Raiser for Fair Elections,” billed as “an event tailored for politically active people and intended to build a local coalition to work for passage of the California Fair Elections Act in June 2010.” This event was co-sponsored by our church’s Social Action Council, and by my count drew 136+ people, including 3 current California State Assemblymembers, and one former Assemblymember.

The former Assemblymember was Sally Lieber, who served from 2003 through 2008. Of all those who spoke in support of the bill, I liked what she said best. Speaking as a former state legislator, she said she supported reforming the way elections were funded because of her own experience: “It’s tough being told, ‘You have to spend at least two hours per day doing fundraising.’ It’s tough being told, ‘I love your bill, it’s a great bill, but if I vote for it, it will damage my fundraising efforts.’ “

Defending religious freedom

Writing on the “On Faith” blog of the Washington Post, Georgetown University professor of government Michael Kessler asserts that the Supreme Court is losing a “big defender of religious freedom” with the impending retirement of David Souter:

Souter may be best known for his razor-sharp majority opinion in the Ten Commandments case McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005). McCreary County had posted the Ten Commandments, first on its own, then in two subsequent displays with other historical documents, meant to soften the religious intent of the display…. The record was fairly clear that the legislation requiring the displays was originally intended to promote a sectarian endorsement of the Ten Commandments….

Souter’s opinion, besides cutting to the heart of the endorsement problem, argued persuasively on historical grounds that the twin prongs of the First Amendment’s religion clauses — establishment and free exercise — were intended to protect individual religious freedom: “The Framers and the citizens of their time intended not only to protect the integrity of individual conscience in religious matters, but to guard against the civic divisiveness that follows when the Government weighs in on one side of religious debate; nothing does a better job of roiling society.”

Against Justice Scalia’s dissenting view that government could… endorse basic tenets of monotheism, Souter argued that the Founders practiced and required neutrality. Without official neutrality on matters of doctrine, the government becomes embroiled in sectarian disputes, choosing some sectarian positions over others: “We are centuries away from the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre and the treatment of heretics in early Massachusetts, but the divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable. This is no time to deny the prudence of understanding the Establishment Clause to require the Government to stay neutral on religious belief, which is reserved for the conscience of the individual.”

It’s worth reading the whole post. And it’s worth reflecting on how Republicans like Souter who live in New England are very different from the Republican “base” in other parts of the country: good solid fiscal conservatives with a strong libertarian streak when it comes to social issues. If you went into most Unitarian churches in New England even forrty years ago, chances are the great majority of the churchgoers would have been Republicans.