Last night, I watched Matt Frei on BBC World News America interview Kori Schake, John McCain's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, ostensibly to determine "her perspective on what policies would prevail in a McCain administration."
Schake, as one would expect, comes with significant foreign policy credentials, including a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins and experience at both West Point and the Hoover Institution. So when the interview begain, I expected Condoleezza Rice, someone who could shoot down questions and issues with a laser-like intellect. But I was wrong.
Unfortunately, I can't find the interview anywhere online, but it was the strangest offering from a head wonk on a major party ticket that I have ever seen: moments of silence where I could almost hear crickets chirping, a proposal for a "League of Democracy" that sounds like something a high school freshman would steal from a comic book to fill out a term paper (Will Batman be a member?), and the stunning revelation that, and I quote, "we have to do something about the bad guys."
"Bad guys"? This foreign policy is straight from Saturday morning cartoons. Cobra Commander was a Bad Guy. The Peculiar Purple Pie Man was a Bad Guy. What to you call a serious threat to American foreign policy? The Guild of Calamitous Intent?
I don't think that it is a left-wing critique to say that McCain's entire campaign seems strangely lethargic and intellectually unexciting. We deserve better.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Bishop Zubik's pastoral
Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh took time off from jury duty to issue his first pastoral letter this week, which I designed.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
McCain's computer illiteracy
Apparently, John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer. Matthew Yglesias finds this odd, contending that it reflects a profound ignorance about the driving force behind the world economy.
Naturally, the McCain campaign has leaped to his defense with eloquence. "You don’t necessarily have to use a computer to understand, you know, how it shapes the country," says Mark SooHoo, McCain's deputy e-campaign manager. "John McCain is aware of the Internet."
I have know idea what this means. I can be aware of the existence of things but not, you know, understand them, and I know of many people who know about computers but can't, you know, use them or understand what they're for. In fact, I have known many such people. Of course, some of these people are indeed quite competent, but they all share one defining characteristic: They are all old.
This little story may have little to say about McCain's character, knowledge of the world, or personal competence as president, but it says much about his age. In a time in which the nation is looking for someone to carry them into the future, a candidate who constantly shows his ties to the past is seriously weakened.
If McCain wants to win, he needs to stop this bleeding, you know, now.
Naturally, the McCain campaign has leaped to his defense with eloquence. "You don’t necessarily have to use a computer to understand, you know, how it shapes the country," says Mark SooHoo, McCain's deputy e-campaign manager. "John McCain is aware of the Internet."
I have know idea what this means. I can be aware of the existence of things but not, you know, understand them, and I know of many people who know about computers but can't, you know, use them or understand what they're for. In fact, I have known many such people. Of course, some of these people are indeed quite competent, but they all share one defining characteristic: They are all old.
This little story may have little to say about McCain's character, knowledge of the world, or personal competence as president, but it says much about his age. In a time in which the nation is looking for someone to carry them into the future, a candidate who constantly shows his ties to the past is seriously weakened.
If McCain wants to win, he needs to stop this bleeding, you know, now.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Pro Publica
Last night, The News Hour on PBS did a story on ProPublica, a non-profit news organization that provides pro bono investigative journalism to newspapers and other new media outlets that have had to lay off their reporting staffs because of budget cuts. News outlets, particularly newspapers, are struggling to meet their bottom lines, and so they are increasingly turning toward cheaper forms of news, like opinion journalism, that are much cheaper to produce than hiring a staff to do actual reporting. ProPublica is attempting to offer a higher-quality alternative.
In a way, ProPublica is attempting to fill a void that has often been filled by public relations organizations, who in their role as press agents have created, pitched, and placed news stories for years, often anonymously. In the 1980s, video news releases produced by public relations and advertising firms provided packaged stories to television news programs, and in recent years, governmental agencies have taken up the practice as well.
VNRs are a controversial practice. The stories may sometimes be good, but they typically offer a distinctly biased version of events. When they are placed in newscasts—often with neither unediting nor comment—viewers are often unable to tell the difference between slanted coverage and actual journalism. As a result, the increasingly widespread integration of news organizations and public relations firms often makes things easier for news providers but more difficult for news audiences.
Where does ProPublica fit in? When it debuted in 2007, the New York Times reported that while the staff was top-notch, it was created and supported by philanthropists with liberal connections. In addition, its mission announces a distinctly democratic—perhaps liberal—bias:
In a way, ProPublica is attempting to fill a void that has often been filled by public relations organizations, who in their role as press agents have created, pitched, and placed news stories for years, often anonymously. In the 1980s, video news releases produced by public relations and advertising firms provided packaged stories to television news programs, and in recent years, governmental agencies have taken up the practice as well.
VNRs are a controversial practice. The stories may sometimes be good, but they typically offer a distinctly biased version of events. When they are placed in newscasts—often with neither unediting nor comment—viewers are often unable to tell the difference between slanted coverage and actual journalism. As a result, the increasingly widespread integration of news organizations and public relations firms often makes things easier for news providers but more difficult for news audiences.
Where does ProPublica fit in? When it debuted in 2007, the New York Times reported that while the staff was top-notch, it was created and supported by philanthropists with liberal connections. In addition, its mission announces a distinctly democratic—perhaps liberal—bias:
ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. We strive to foster change through exposing exploitation of the weak by the strong and the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.Bias, of course, isn't a problem, since everyone has a bias. The problem is unannounced bias, in which biased coverage purports to be completely neutral. ProPublica will have to be careful in how it announces the investigative coverage it produces, not only for the sake of its own reputation but also for the industry as a whole. In a media landscape in which public relations firms, advertising agencies, activist groups, corporate communicators, and non-profit reporting organizations will increasingly compete with traditional news providers, perhaps ProPublica's greatest service will be to show how quality coverage should occur in a decentralized, chaotic, virtual world.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Pew Survey
Yesterday, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released its latest Religious Landscape Survey. The survey, the New York Times reports, finds that Americans are deeply spiritual—that is, they report that they believe in God, pray regularly, and may even attend church—but are also inclusive and heterodox in their religious beliefs.
The rubber particularly meets the road when it comes to salvation. Americans, the survey suggests, are far more likely to believe in universal salvation instead of restricting salvation to their fellow believers. The Times reports:
In many ways, such findings are not new. American religion, despite its conservative undercurrents, has often been amorphous and inclusive. Bill Herberg, writing in the 1950s, observed that the religious divisions between Americans were eroding and merging into a single, corporate faith under the heading of the "Judeo-Christian tradition."
Of course, many religious people—particularly Jews—found Herberg's description of American religious life bland and amorphously syncretistic, but its assesment of the religious sentiment of American culture was remarkably accurate. Nevertheless, when Todd Johnson, director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, suggests that the survey suggests "that people are not very well educated and they are not expressing mature theological points of view," he is not describing a new phenomenon but a much longer trend within American society.
The difference, perhaps, is that American religious life is moving away from the Judeo-Christian tradition into a much more complex synthesis, in which Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam are part of the equation. What this will mean—and how traditionalist Christians will deal with it—is yet to be determined.
The rubber particularly meets the road when it comes to salvation. Americans, the survey suggests, are far more likely to believe in universal salvation instead of restricting salvation to their fellow believers. The Times reports:
The most significant contradictory belief the survey reveals has to do with salvation. Previous surveys have shown that Americans think a majority of their countrymen and women will go to heaven, and that the circle is wide, embracing minorities like Jews, Muslims and atheists. But the Pew survey goes further, showing that such views are held by those within major branches of Christianity and minority faiths, too.
In many ways, such findings are not new. American religion, despite its conservative undercurrents, has often been amorphous and inclusive. Bill Herberg, writing in the 1950s, observed that the religious divisions between Americans were eroding and merging into a single, corporate faith under the heading of the "Judeo-Christian tradition."
Of course, many religious people—particularly Jews—found Herberg's description of American religious life bland and amorphously syncretistic, but its assesment of the religious sentiment of American culture was remarkably accurate. Nevertheless, when Todd Johnson, director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, suggests that the survey suggests "that people are not very well educated and they are not expressing mature theological points of view," he is not describing a new phenomenon but a much longer trend within American society.
The difference, perhaps, is that American religious life is moving away from the Judeo-Christian tradition into a much more complex synthesis, in which Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam are part of the equation. What this will mean—and how traditionalist Christians will deal with it—is yet to be determined.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Zimbabwe's Turn to the Dark Side
When I learned this morning that Robert Mugabe's tactics of thuggery and violence had caused his opponent for the Zimbabwean presidency, Morgan Tsvangirai, to withdraw from the run-off election and go into hiding at the Dutch embassy, I was, like many people who have been following the election crisis, dubfounded, and I was even more disturbed when I saw a BBC broadcast showing armies of pro-Mugabe supporters with clubs and machetes walking through fields preparing to kill or maim anyone who did not support his tenuous hold on power.
Mugabe has completed his turn from from a Nelson Mandela-like figure to the African equivalent of Darth Vader. The question is what will happen next. The African leaders who are most able to exert pressure on Zimbabwe—particularly South Africa and Mozambique, because they control Zimbabwe's access to the sea—seem unwilling to do so. The New York Times, for instance, notes that South Africa has consitently opposed action by the United Nations Security Council, perhaps because it is concerned that any pressure on the regime could cause it to collapse completely, creating an even greater humanitarian crisis that would destabilize the entire region.
Yet, Brendan O’Neill, writing in Spiked, suggests the problem may not be the lack of outside involvement in Zimbabwe. Ironically, it may be just the opposite: The ardent support of Morgan Tsvangirai by outside governments has encouraged him to look outside the borders of Zimbabwe for support instead of developing a stronger grassroots network within the country. "The events of the past 24 hours demonstrate that Western governments’ relentless exploitation of the Zimbabwe crisis has helped to disenfranchise the Zimbabwean people," he write. "Literally. The logic of Western pressure has made the MDC reliant on the favour and flattery of external forces, rather than on the grit and the votes of its own mass support base."
In withdrawing from contention, Tsvangirai is trying to avoid further violence and possibly genocide. O'Neill, however, sees his actions as inappropriate. This is a time, he contends, in which the Zimbabwean people need to take matters into their own hands. But what does that mean? Is the opposition prepared for armed insurrection? Do they have enough guns? This is certainly what the Mugabe government is preparing for, as his supporters parade through the streets chanting, "Win or war!"
One of the most interesting and potentially important forces for change lies not with military action but with the country's Christian churches. The Tablet writes of Mugabe's struggles to control Christians in the country by encouraging them to become "truly Zimbabwean" or "patriotic." The Anglican Bishop of Harare has done so, though the Catholic Church, as well as other Protestant groups, have stood firm.
The importance of Zimbabwe's Christian churches should not be discounted. They provide a ready grassroots network as well as a moral vocabulary that can help them critique the ruling regime without descending into violence. Faith, not force, may yet hold the key to finding a solution to Zimbabwe's challenges before the nation's instability engulfs all of southern Africa.
Mugabe has completed his turn from from a Nelson Mandela-like figure to the African equivalent of Darth Vader. The question is what will happen next. The African leaders who are most able to exert pressure on Zimbabwe—particularly South Africa and Mozambique, because they control Zimbabwe's access to the sea—seem unwilling to do so. The New York Times, for instance, notes that South Africa has consitently opposed action by the United Nations Security Council, perhaps because it is concerned that any pressure on the regime could cause it to collapse completely, creating an even greater humanitarian crisis that would destabilize the entire region.
Yet, Brendan O’Neill, writing in Spiked, suggests the problem may not be the lack of outside involvement in Zimbabwe. Ironically, it may be just the opposite: The ardent support of Morgan Tsvangirai by outside governments has encouraged him to look outside the borders of Zimbabwe for support instead of developing a stronger grassroots network within the country. "The events of the past 24 hours demonstrate that Western governments’ relentless exploitation of the Zimbabwe crisis has helped to disenfranchise the Zimbabwean people," he write. "Literally. The logic of Western pressure has made the MDC reliant on the favour and flattery of external forces, rather than on the grit and the votes of its own mass support base."
In withdrawing from contention, Tsvangirai is trying to avoid further violence and possibly genocide. O'Neill, however, sees his actions as inappropriate. This is a time, he contends, in which the Zimbabwean people need to take matters into their own hands. But what does that mean? Is the opposition prepared for armed insurrection? Do they have enough guns? This is certainly what the Mugabe government is preparing for, as his supporters parade through the streets chanting, "Win or war!"
One of the most interesting and potentially important forces for change lies not with military action but with the country's Christian churches. The Tablet writes of Mugabe's struggles to control Christians in the country by encouraging them to become "truly Zimbabwean" or "patriotic." The Anglican Bishop of Harare has done so, though the Catholic Church, as well as other Protestant groups, have stood firm.
The importance of Zimbabwe's Christian churches should not be discounted. They provide a ready grassroots network as well as a moral vocabulary that can help them critique the ruling regime without descending into violence. Faith, not force, may yet hold the key to finding a solution to Zimbabwe's challenges before the nation's instability engulfs all of southern Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
