Politics

I often think about how the world could be a better place if politicians did certain things and abstained from other things. Here are a some of my ideas. I believe they may be helpful to those politicians/leaders who are people of integrity, and wish to make a contribution as public servants. Contrary to popular belief, these people do exist.

Campaigning
This is essentially an art that cannot be mastered by everyone. Also, it can be more difficult if you are unwilling to lie or be pimped by interest groups. But these obstacles can be overcome if you are intelligent, highly motivated, strong, and charismatic.

Campaigns are driven by money. If you don't have it, you can't run. Plain and simple. Local races tend to cost less, so for this (and other) reasons, I would advise starting at the local level if you are a novice. In order to raise money, you must be willing to ask for it. You must not be ashamed to knock on doors, make phone calls, and send emails all for the sake of your campaign. If you are a person of integrity, and actually have a sound platform, you can ask for money with confidence. Many people will say "no", but many will actually contribute if they agree with your platform.

Personally, I'm a fan of asking for relatively small amounts from a vast number of people. But depending on the demographics of your social circle(s) and the community where you seek to be elected, you may be able to go straight for the "ballers" or key players (not to the exclusion of others with less money). When you ask for money, you should be willing to say exactly what that money will be used for, and once you have the money, it must be used for that purpose.

When donors give you money, you must thank them. If you thank them in writing, sign by your own hand. If this is impossible because of volume, I suggest signing a percentage with your own hand. This is particularly important when dealing with older voters who remember a world before email.

If you have fundraisers (and you should have fundraisers), make sure you speak to every single person in attendance. Thank everyone for making it a success. Even if it's not really a success, thank everyone for making it a success. This means any elected officials who came to endorse you, any donors, your family, your friends, the wait staff. If you are fortunate enough to have many, many people come to your fundraiser, it will be a challenge to make personal time for all of them. But you should do your very best to meet all of them. You should appoint someone to be in charge of your time. You need this if you are not good at ending conversations gracefully. This person should say "I'm sorry to be rude but I have to get [candidate X] over to thank some more guests." You should in turn look perturbed, but acquiesce to your manager's demand. Graciously apologize to the person with whom you were speaking, and move on. If you say "I'll talk to you some more later," you must not forget.

Media
If the media become interested in your campaign, this can be both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing if they like you; if they dislike you, you're in for a hell of a ride. I think it's best to start with the assumption that the media are curious about you, but undecided as to your qualifications. You must give them reasons to like you. This can be accomplished by being courteous in person, returning phone calls, and saying "thank you for speaking with me" when the interview is over.

If you are dealing with unscrupulous members of the media (and trust me, you will deal with them sooner or later), you must never become visibly angry or be rude. Especially if they have a news camera or any sort of recording device. Never, never, never believe a journalist who says "this is off the record." It's not. Seriously. Whatever you say will turn up in a newspaper or magazine, and people will read it and believe it. If you become visibly angry at a reporter with a news camera for stalking you, or lying to your staff to get close to you, or simply for asking stupid ass questions, guess what portion of the exchange will end up on the evening news. Exactly ... it'll be you, looking like a ranting, raving lunatic. Editing machines, baby. Remain calm, cool, collected, and charismatic at all times. This is hard. You may have to practice behind closed doors.

If you need to practice, have your staff do roleplaying exercises with you. They should pretend to be hostile journalists, or competing candidates. They must ask you all the toughest questions you could possibly encounter. And you must come up with answers. Practice this until you are comfortable. If you cannot get comfortable answering tough questions, then you probably shouldn't be involved in politics.

Speaking of tough questions, there is a special category that deals with scandal. Tough questions on policy are one thing, but if you have a potential scandal attached to your name, you need to take special precautions. If you don't know what I mean by "scandal", ask yourself what's the worst thing you've ever done. Ask yourself what's the worst thing that one of your friends or relatives has ever done. You must assume that this will be made an issue in your campaign. And you must have a response. If you were young and irresponsible when the indiscretion took place, make that clear to voters. And make it clear that you learned from the experience, have matured, and have moved on.

Make it clear that your character is intact today, and that you currently have something of value to offer your community. Make it clear that you are the very best candidate for the job right now. If you're not the best candidate, get out of the race; you don't deserve the job. Voters don't care so much about what you did twenty years ago, as long as they believe you're currently the best person for the job. Don't let the media or other candidates smear your name without a fight.

If you're indiscretion took place recently, make sure those closest to you know about it as soon as possible. Don't let your spouse find out by watching the evening news. Don't let your kids hear at school. Tell them face to face, and if they want you to quit running for election ... you might just want to do that. Put the needs of the people who love you first. If you can't decide between losing an election and losing your family because of some scandal that's probably your own fault, you don't need to be an elected official. We already have enough hollow men at the local, state, and federal levels.

Anyhow, if after being told about the indiscretion, those closest to you give you the green light, tell the media that you're sorry for any shame or disappointment that you've caused your loved ones, and thank them for supporting you and continuing to believe in your character. Then go on to say that you never could have overcome those past challenges without their help, and their support makes it possible for you to be the very best candidate for the job. Make it clear that you and your family have moved on. But keep in mind that "moving on" may be extremely difficult if your indiscretion was of a criminal nature, and the statute of limitations hasn't passed.

I have a bunch of other ideas, but this post is becoming far too long. I'll end by saying candidates should remember that they are seeking to be public servants. It's a highly demanding job worthy of respect; not everyone can do it, but it needs to be done. Most people who take the time to vote understand this, and will at least give you a chance. Now get out there and earn some votes.

Storm

Let's write haikus. Here's mine:

Great rolling thunder
rumbles across the night sky,
and rain drops descend.

The Space Between Love and Choice

My friend is reeling from a break-up. Maybe "reeling" is too strong ... he's adjusting. He was on the receiving end of the break-up, and I can tell that in some ways, he thinks it's for the best. But I sense sadness, a sense of loss. A couple of us met him at a bar that we like, and the three of us talked about women, what they expect of us, what we expect of them.

The conversation was another variation of a constant theme, one that changes ever so gradually, almost imperceptibly, as we age. The vocabulary and the situations have changed since high school, but I think the essence of the conversations was the same. Our words focused on meaningful companionship with a woman. We wondered aloud: How does one achieve it? How can one sustain it? What does one do when he loses it?

Our answers varied depending on our religious/philosophical beliefs. My friend is a deist. He believes that marriage is a practical matter; it provides a safe, consistent environment for children, and allows individuals to pool resources. In his eyes, it's an institution that's good for society, and love has very little to do with it. He said, "True love never lasts anyway. It can't."

This made me think of a couple of chapters in The Road Less Travelled, by M. Scott Peck. I mentioned the book, and asked if he'd read it. He said, "That book was my father's bible. I've read that shit about ten times. So yes ... we're discussing the difference between love and cathexis. I'm saying cathexis does not last." I said I wasn't so sure. I described another friend's grandparents. They got married as young people, had six children together (lost one in infancy), and seemed truly, truly happy fifty years later. They weren't just companions; they were into each other.

My friend explained that things were different back then, and that they had probably lost their virginity to each other, thus prolonging the cathexis. He seemed to be implying that people who have had more than one partner cannot enjoy that sort of sustained romantic happiness.

I don't really believe that. At least I don't think I do. I see what he's saying, though. The feeling of being "in love" does seem sort of evanescent. A number of evangelical writers talk about love being "a choice" or "a commitment". They keep singing the same refrain again and again: "Marriage is hard work. It's tough!" Yes, that seems to be true. But I find the whole "love is a choice" argument to be lacking. It seems almost ... trite. It's as if they believe humans have two mutually exclusive options in terms of sexual relationships: a) be madly in love (and rest assured that it won't last for long); b) choose to be committed despite lots of hard times to come. It's as if they believe that lucky married people start off with the first, and prudently understand that it won't last; they get to have some joy before they have to roll up their sleeves and get down to hard work for the rest of their lives. What about the unlucky married folks? Well, they knew what they were getting into, and didn't miss out on much because, hey ... being in love only lasts a little while.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. I can't explain it though. My guess is that the space that's left after the feelings of being in love disintegrate should be filled with ... I don't know if there's a word for it in English. A deep and abiding friendship that propels/demands intimacy. It's that "thing" that makes a man think "I don't understand her, and she's a real pain in the ass sometimes, but ... I sure hate it when she isn't around." It's a feeling, a force, a phenomenon that makes a man want to be ... better, but not just for her. He wants to be better for himself; her being around just sheds more light on the subject, and puts things in perspective. This "thing" or phenomenon or whatever it is, that fills the space between "being in love" and consigning oneself to determined commitment, seems to be an unlikely blend of trust, respect, admiration, and physical attraction (not an exhaustive list).

It seems to manifest itself differently in men and women, but of course, that's a generalization. From what I can tell, it's very elusive at times, and tends to pop up when least expected, thriving among individuals who have healthy souls and minds. Who can understand it, much less explain it?

Psalm

You are my portion, O Lord; I have said that I would keep Your words.
I entreated Your favor with my whole heart; be merciful to me according to Your word.
I thought about my ways, and turned my feet to Your testimonies.
I made haste, and did not delay to keep Your commandments.
The cords of the wicked have bound me, but I have not forgotten Your law.
At midnight I will rise to give thanks to You, because of Your righteous judgments.
I am a companion of all who fear You, and of those who keep Your precepts.
The earth, O Lord, is full of Your mercy; teach me your statutes.

Psalm 119: 57-64

Dedications & Quotations

I was flipping through a copy of The Screwtape Letters yesterday. I noticed that it is dedicated to J.R.R. Tolkien, a Catholic who was instrumental in Lewis' journey toward faith. And the pages preceeding the letters include quotes concerning Satan. One is by Luther, chief among protesters. The other is by Thomas More, a lawyer and dedicated Catholic apologist, who ultimately lost his life for opposing Henry VIII's marital indiscretions. More is now considered the patron saint of lawyers.

Luther and More seemed to dislike each other because of their differing religious views.

I think the use of statements from members from "competing" theological traditions was a statement in and of itself. I can't remember the quotes verbatim, but they said essentially the same thing. I'll try to remember to post them later. It seems that Lewis is pointing out that both Luther and More, despite their differences, were agreed in their assessment of their common adversary, the devil.

Writing

The other night I was thinking about how much I love to write. A couple of my closest friends have encouraged me to get motivated and put the pen to the paper. It's hard though. It takes discipline. I promise myself that I will work hard to produce some quality stuff once this bar exam is over. I have lots of essays rambling around in this head of mine.

I've been thinking a lot about David, that Hebrew shepherd/poet/warrior who lived so long ago. I wonder if he sat around with his closest friends, shared his thoughts, and then heard them say "You should write that down, man. Really ... you should." I wonder if he got sick to his stomach after killing Goliath, or if he got sick to his stomach every time he killed someone. How could killing ever become easy for a poet?

Busy-ness

I don't have much time on the internet these days. I'm still not telling most folks who know me about this blog, so it's kind of a challenge to get online and write without being found out. But since I like living on the edge, I'm typing as a friend sits across the table from me. Keeping my fingers crossed that she doesn't get out her seat and take a peek at the screen.

I would really love to write about Coretta Scott King's funeral, and how/why Bill Clinton received that much applause. I'd like to talk about why the audience was so tough on George Bush, Sr. and why one of the speakers felt it was okay to diss the President when he was less than twelve feet away. I have lots and lots to say about that stuff, but ... no time. I guess I could make time, but then I'll be all moody and anxious about not using time wisely, etc.

It's all about the bar exam, hoss. I feel pretty good about it today. This is the last stretch ... I'm kind of shocked at how quickly time passes.

Happy Friday to you and yours. Don't drink and drive. If you do, you are being an idiot. And I will work extra hours to sue the hell out of you for any damage that you cause once I get the coveted law license. I mean that; I have a thing about drunk drivers.

Bad Dreams

The other night my friend woke me up, and said "you're having a bad dream." Apparently I was calling out for my mom. I felt a little bashful about that. Funny ... I don't really remember the dream.

Michiana

I am in South Bend, Indiana. It's good to be back in the old law school neighborhood. But I was sad to see that they've changed some things since I've been gone. Some houses were demolished to make "improvements" in a road, and the intersection is ... different. There's a little median just north of the intersection, and the road curves now. It was just a normal two-lane road before. I saw that a bunch of trees have been cut down for another road. It reminded me of that scene out of Lord of the Rings when all the trees were being destroyed by the Orcs.

The locals call this region "Michiana". South Bend is about eleven miles south of the Michigan border. One cannot purchase alchohol on Sundays in Indiana, so it's common to drive up to Michigan for a case of beer. One must also be careful about the change in time zone; this part of Indiana doesn't switch to daylight savings time. So if you're catching a movie or a play in Michigan, you have to make sure to clarify the time zone. One time we drove about 30-40 miles to an artsy cinema in Michigan, and when we got there, the movie was half over. The lady at the counter said "Oh, you guys must've come from Indiana. It started at 7:00 Michigan time."

I would not want to live in South Bend permanently, but I am glad to be here now. My time is my own, and I am being fairly productive. There are lots of good places to take walks. And I get to visit stores, restaurants, cafes I haven't been to in a while. I realized I've missed Michiana.

Orthodoxy

I first began to seriously consider Orthodoxy last summer after a few emails and a long discussion with a Lutheran pastor. The pastor belongs to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), and is a traditionalist. He embraces liturgy, and holds fast to many of the teachings of Luther, including the perpetual virginity of Mary. Yeah, Luther believed in that; I've heard that Calvin did too, but don't quote me on that. The pastor's theology/methodology causes some tension with the LCMS, which has begun to lean more in the direction of other mainstream protestant groups. While still theologically conservative, they are finding less and less use for the liturgy, and the sung liturgy in particular. Anyhow ...

I asked the pastor "If you had to recommend a place to worship other than your church, where would you recommend?" He said "If I were not a Lutheran pastor, I would become Orthodox." And thus began a long conversation. He recommended that I visit an Orthodox parish which happens to be very close to my house. I've been, oh ... maybe 4-5 times. It is an experience that I think every Christian should have, at least once. Especially if they can find the Divine Liturgy in their native language. If it's in Greek, Serbian, or Arabic, and you don't speak those languages, you might just end up enjoying some good music and incomprehensible chanting.

Orthodoxy is foreign to me. I find so many aspects beautiful, but strange. I disagree with some of the theology, but more often I find that I just don't understand the theology. The Orthodox use terms like divine energies, and theosis. They ask the saints for intercession, but most of the saints aren't the ones with whom Westerners are familiar. Not that I feel comfortable asking a saint to intercede for me in the first place.

Orthodox theologians seem to be irritated (offended maybe?) by the language used by western theologians (i.e. Roman Catholics and Protestants). Here's an example: regarding the efficacy of the crucifixion for man's redemption, the Orthodox position seems to be that "Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins." Instead, they embrace the notion that "Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation."

I can't say that I really see a substantial difference between the two positions, but the Orthodox seem to see an important distinction. I wonder who feels equipped to articulate the difference between those two positions, and to weigh the difference in terms of importance.

I suspect that the difference isn't terribly important, but I still want to understand it. I long for clarity. I'm realizing that I like rules, and predictable results. Things are safer that way. Or at least more comfortable.

I see shades of gray, and lots of them. It seems like Truth should be either black or white.