Study Group, March 17, 2014
I love history, and now in my retirement, have a chance to read more of it once again (I was a history major in college, and in seminary, focused on church history) …
I believe that in knowing more of our history, we can better understand today’s events (e.g. Crimea!) and what our politicians are saying, both conservative and liberal and those who are “damp” (a descriptor of Roosevelt in 1930-31 with regard to Prohibition - that is, he was neither dry nor wet, but wanted, at that time, to let the States decide it).
Conscious or not, everyone stands on the shoulders of history. Some stand more intelligently - William Buckley on the conservative side of things and Robert Kennedy on the liberal end of things. Both, now, are dead … but their descendants carry on. Though, for the life of me, I have a hard time finding contemporary conservative voices that make any sense - most, like Paul Ryan, who quotes Ayn Rand, seem to be mostly poseurs, pretenders and buffoons. As for liberal voices, Robert Reich seems to me to have a solid grasp on both his philosophy and what it means for America. Bernie Sanders, as well. Christian writer Jim Wallace seems to be in the “damp” category, though with heavy leanings toward the left. Diana Butler Bass, church historian, clearly leans left, as well. I would put them in the Reinhold Niebuhr camp.
Yet, in this respect, there is very little new under the sun when it comes to views of human nature, society and the solutions to our economic and social problems.
At a loss for how to prepare for our meeting, I’ve decided to share some of my recent reflections, knowing that it won’t take much to get a thoughtful and good-hearted discussion going.
Here’s one of my latest:
Monday, March 17, 2014
As the nation plunged deeper into the Great Depression, Roosevelt, governor of New York State, went into action, believing that government has a social responsibility to provide when the chips are down.
During all of this time, a Roosevelt-for-President movement was gaining momentum.
What surprises me is how many of highest business leaders of the land were lining up behind Roosevelt. He was anti-tarrif, "damp" on the question of Prohibition (leave it to the States) and pro-active for moving the economy.
I can only think that the best heads of business understood that a healthy nation needed a strong government working on behalf of all the people.
Roosevelt created in New York State what was ultimately to become FEMA (1933), raised income taxes (graduated) and put people to work, and if work couldn't be found, helped them out to weather the storm.
What's good for all the people is good for American Business - Roosevelt understood this, and so did the nation's top financiers.
Sadly, Hooverism seems to have won the day for what is now the GOP, driven by the Koch Bros and other private-interest groups, who have little concern for America, and can only focus on their own private coffers.
As with Hoover's policies in 1931-32, a private-coffer driven economy can only spiral downward … to some ears, it sounds good - "sink or swim; you're on your own," and for those swimming, they're mighty damn proud of their achievement, even as millions drown in the murky waters of poverty. I guess they should've learned how to swim.
-------------------------
Questions:
Some, like Governor Ritchie of Maryland, suggested that it would be best to “let nature take its course. Others, like Roosevelt, believed that a pro-active government was needed to forestall disaster for millions.
- How does this play itself out these days?
- Who are the spokespersons for these respective views?
- What appeals to you, and why?
------------------------------
One of my heroes …
Reading about #FDR's polio, summer of 1921 …
Because of his family's enormous wealth, every specialist, therapist and all the needed equipment was provided. Throughout it all, FDR maintained a vigorous determination to make it; many a visitor found themselves leaving encouraged and cheerful. His ability to make others feel right and good was uncanny. All of life up to this point was filled with extraordinary people who believed in him, encouraged him and provided opportunity. FDR grew up in a network of people who understood the absolute value of family, community and helping one another.
As I read about all the help that was given to him, he was learning how reliant he was upon the goodness and kindness of others - a value instilled in him from the day of his birth.
And this is exactly what he gave to the nation throughout his presidency - knowing that we're all in this together, that we can only help one another, and those with the ability to help need to help those who are unable to find a way through.
No one condemned FDR for his illness, no one blamed him for his condition - they only helped.
Such is the heart of FDR's greatness … he condemned not the poor of the land, he blamed no one for their weakness, but devoted himself to endless political experiments to help everyone find a better life.
----------------------
Questions:
Whatever we believe and however we act, it’s rooted in our biography, if note, as well, in our biology.
- What are the key pieces of your life that have shaped your political views - i.e., how you look upon your world, and how you think government should interface with social issues?
- If your parents were alive today, or are still with us, what are their views, and how did that shape you?
- Were there key players in your education?
- Who are you heroes?
------------------------
The place of “god” in our lives …
Reading a bit about Wilson's "peace treaty" after WW1, he came home, in his usual Presbyterian pomp, declaring, that the treaty had come about "by no means of our conceiving but by the hand of God who has led us into this way." ~ "FDR," p.174
If "love covers a multitude of sins," for the good, "blind dogmatic belief that it's God's doing rather than ours" covers over a multitude of sins that require the light of day instead.
How disingenuous of Wilson - though, perhaps, he believed it. It's an affliction common among the dogmatic - "Why, it's not me, it's God!"
Wilson's firm conviction that his presidency was divinely ordained cut him off from all kinds of people who might have stood with him on the League of Nations, and it blinded him to the awful things decided in Paris, 1919. Wilson went it alone, convinced that God was all he needed, and he was all God needed, too.
I, myself, know of no greater evil than this kind of perverse dogmatic trust that "it's all God," and not me, or something like that.
Serial killers rely on this kind of delusion, and apparently many a religious leader soliciting money and leading congregations into foolish decisions.
Wilson made an ass of himself, I fear, while hiding in some delusional dogmatic Presbyterian notion of God's infallibility at work in Wilson's vision and life.
History, at its best makes clear, that all Wilson needed to say, and should have said, was this: "We have labored long and hard to find a workable peace for Europe. It's likely to have many flaws, for our vision and understanding is so limited. All of us prayed on so many occasions that God might have some hand in this. And we can only hope that we have crafted a document that means something, and perhaps, in God's mercy, we might have God's blessing, too."
In such a moment, humility would have covered a multitude of sins.
------------
Questions …
- Where is Wilson’s “blind belief” at play these days?
- Can belief in God be helpful, problematic, or …
- What’s the status of “God-belief” in your life these days?
No comments:
Post a Comment