A domestic policy issue that came up in recent months was Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and how it was enforced.
Basically, same-gendered loving persons were kicked out of the military if outed. I just never understood why this policy was necessary. I’d prefer that Christians have to take loyalty oaths before joining the military service. Yes, I am serious.
Voted in favor of repealing DADT. In 1993, he voted in favor of it because, well, it was the 90s, and our politicians didn’t know what they were doing on any level. Democrats or Republicans. DADT was considered the “middle” way, you know, the radical center.
The appropriate position that Paul and Palin have taken is to see the traditional marriage argument and inclusion in our military as two separate issues, and I would agree: marriage is pre-existent to the polis (the nation-state), the military is an establishment post-polis, (the nation-state).
I wrote this post to piss off conservatives. No, I really did. Why? I realize that the loudest voices in the Republican Party right now are all military conservatives (foreign policy-wise). According to the Trinitarian logic of the Reagan coalition, in order for Republicans to win national campaigns, social, fiscal, and military conservatives must come out in droves on Election Day.
In May of this year, Sarah Palin dumped Randy Scheuneman as foreign policy advisor, one that leaned toward neo-conservativism (worldwide empire and perpetual war). Of course, he was a left over from John McCain’s presidential campaign, and John McCain’s foreign policy, is well, irrational and insane, and that’s putting it nicely.
Take this exchange between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum at the recent Iowa debate:
Rick Santorum failed to realize that installing a dictatorship in Iran IS AN ACT OF WAR. It is not an innocent project or working for peace and liberty–sorry, President Ike, you were wrong on the Shah (but right on segregation and domestic affairs). So we declared war on Iran decades ago.
“That said, we should not commit U.S. troops or military assets to serve as peacekeepers or perform humanitarian missions or nation-building in Libya. Our military is already over-committed and strained, and a vaguely designed mission can be the first step toward a quagmire. The internal situation does not seem stable enough for U.S. forces to operate in a purely humanitarian manner without the possibility of coming under attack. Troop deployment to Libya would mean placing America’s finest in a potentially hostile zone that is not in our vital national security interest.”
“This episode is all too familiar. We were already involved in two wars that have dragged on years longer than the people who led us into them initially predicted. We can no longer afford to police the world, in terms of both dollars and American lives. We will destroy ourselves if we do not stop, build a strong national defense at home, and focus on trade and commerce with the world instead of Empire.”
Interesting, I guess we need to stop comparing to the familiar (George W. Bush) and maybe start comparing her views to more like Ron Paul.
My people—children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them-Isaiah 3:12, NRSV
In my first year of seminary, I did a book report on John Knox for Church History II: The Reformation, Rosalind Marshall’s John Knox. Rejecting Knox as the founder of Scottish presbyterianism, her approach was that in his historical context, John Knox preached the Word that made Scotland more receptive to Calvinism.
In 1562, Mary, Queen of Scots rose to power over Great Britain as Queen Mary I. Knox would engage Queen Mary in debates over the Catholic and Protestant faiths. I nis his text, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, Knox proposed God had the great Isle of Britain under judgment by placing a WICKED woman in power. The key word here I think is the adjective “wicked” and his reference to Mary as Jezebel. It is wicked women [note: Catholic women and men] whom Knox objected to being in power. Knox served three years as a galley slave while living in exile since Protestantism was illegal (1547-1549), but safely made his way back once Parliament repealed the laws against the heretics.
Knox was so opposed to Catholicism, he was even offended by those who would kneel at communion (they do in the Anglican and Lutheran churches today. Just sayin…). He suffered political persecution and was once more driven into exile (the dude had a martyr complex, seriously), and it was there in Geneva, he became acquainted with John Calvin. I would like to note that Knox came to see that his Reformation would exclude the dukes an nobility of Scotland [an interesting point I need to go back and study--thanks Joel for reminding me of this paper] since it was the rich and the powerful that corrupted his movement.
From this position, added to the fact that John Knox knew of Protestant preachers executed at the hands of Mary I (so much for a more peaceful world if women reigned, yes?), it was a matter of life and death for John Knox to oppose Queen Mary.
What hath this to doeth with today’s world? Well, remember that controversy over whether Southern Baptists should vote for the McCain/Palin ticket simply because she was a woman? Or now how we are wondeirng if Michelle Bachmann shall be “submissive” at her denomination’s request? All of this baggage has a history connected with John Knox’s struggle with Queen Mary and his interpretation. Now, I predict we will hear evangelicals use the story of Deborah over Knox’s narrative of Jezebel.
And that’s fine. But let us not apply John Knox’s use of the Old Testament universally, and let us do admit his influence on the current debates over the appearance of women’s bodies in the public square.
Recently Scott and his his Joelness have been taking cheap shots at my politics (particularly on Twitter).
Let me respond in the clearest way possible. Without a doubt, I support two of the most controversial politicians (on the “right”), you know, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. But the prospects of presidential aspirations by the latter seems to keep the Left up at night counting sheeple. Every time there is a misquote a mistake, well, here come five or six re-posts. But when President Obama makes a gaffe. Nothing. Nada. Why? Because plain and simple, the political is personal. And if your political preferences do not allow you to be consistent, it is you that is making the emotional argument. It is you who are being the immature one.
If I were to waste my time posting every gaffe and lie that Obama has made, it would probably be a year’s worth of posts, but it would not make a shred of difference, because culturally, the media favors the President. There wouldn’t be any reposts. Besides, I only wish to focus on the issues (which is nearly impossible in this day and age). I will leave the job of personal attacks and keeping score to bloggers like Michelle Malkin Here. Or perhaps a brief look at this note posted by Palin here, showing gaffes by the President that the media ignores here.
So there are 57 states? The constitution was written 20 centuries ago? Israel can be a supporter of Israel? If Palin had said these things, these would be added to the list of gaffes the media has.
The funny part about all of these gaffes, is that no matter how many mistakes Palin or Tea Party politicians make, and no matter how much the media tries to question their intelligence, that these people will always be smarter than the dumb voters who elected Obama based on his race. Electing official based off of ethnicity and racial background is just the dumbest thing anyone can do. Identity politics keeps us living in ignorance. There I said it.
My point is this: do not give me some bull-crap argument that I am not being fair or trying to be fair, when the odds are already stacked against libertarian-conservative thinkers to begin with. Obama has never admitted to any of his mistakes. So why does he never get dissed? How about his appalling record on war when he claimed to be the top progressive peace candidate? There is so much hypocrisy on the left, its really just that hilarious.
Don’t lecture me about objectivity or not labeling persons; that’s just an attempt to get away with not discussing the issues, and making it more about your own personal beefs with your conservative specter pasts.