Western Civ and Christianity

In a comment to the last post CZF (owner of the excellent blog The Relative Comment) asks in response to DT's post:

Earlier in that post DT says that one of the issues is that Christianity is now a minority position in western world. Would you agree with this statement? I think i understand the sentiment, but can think of nothing that could possibly have replaced Christianity as the majority position in the west, and certainly not in the US? Maybe it is leading in a plurality of options a la Bill Clinton, but I struggle to see it as a minority position.

To which I replied:

I think you are right. It is one of many. And perhaps the biggest of any distinct ideology/point of view/worldview. At the same time the thrust of the western world is strongly anti-christian. I don't mean this in a political sense or moral sense. Rather, the values of the western world--money, power, easy living--are much more in line with Greek and Roman thought than Christian thought. The church, in its weakness, falls prey to the idols of the west. In that sense Christianity is a definite minority...often among Christians.

I do this not to just highlight the excellent comment, but to expand upon my point of an inherent tension in the Western World.

Christianity has a unique place and role in the creation of Western Civilization. Unlike the other great civilizations of the world, Western Civ's primary religion (Christianity) has always stood in tension with it's primary cultural roots (Roman/Greek/and a bit of German). Christianity's ideals and way of life are antithetical to the Greek and Roman understanding of the world. Though Christianity became dominant the Roman and Greek way did not disappear, but became subsumed into the culture. Compare this to India, where Hinduism was part an parcel of the growth Indian civilization. Christianity was (and is) foreign to the Greeks, whereas Hinduism was native to India. (Please note, I understand that this is gross oversimplification.)

This "foreignness" has caused problems for the Church. Too often in an effort to be relevant, the Church has given up its Kingdom building mission and done what it could for power and money and easy living. Even today the Church too often let's itself be and succumbs to easy answers and a narrowing mission. In America this means the church focuses on things it feels confident about, usually some sort of moral issue. But it does not ask the difficult questions that may tip apple cart, such as question our economic system, justice, etc...

The BET!

I was talking to Egg Farmer in Cokato the other day about the topics of the day: taxes, federal budgets, and egg prices. As a businessman Egg Farmer in Cokato had lots of insight into taxes, particularly how a lack of harmonization between federal and state taxes create different incentives (e.g., the feds allow a business to accelerate the depreciation of an asset--say new packing equipment--encouraging the business to purchase expensive items and then deduct the cost from it's taxes. Minnesota does not allow a business to do that).

Anyway, EFIC is much more pessimistic than me. I said that the USA will hit a significant budgetary crisis because of every rising deficits, while he says it will happen within in 10 years. Thus, a bet is born. For a six pack of beer we decided to bet on the timing of a significant budgetary crisis. The definition of the crisis will be a point of time in which the US Congress will need to balance the budget (for the fiscal year) because of significant financial pressures. If this crisis happens before Dec 31, 2019, Egg Farmer in Cokato wins. If after, Redhead in Rapid wins. The bet is a bit wooly, but we think we can agree when we see the crisis unfold before our eyes.

The ELECTION

Since last Tuesday we've been inundated (if you've been paying attention) with analysis about the ELECTION. Folks, pundits, and politicians have been pontificating upon the meaning of the election... MANDATE for Republicans...Victory for the Tea Party...Demonstrated the limits of the Tea Party...Smaller Government...No Government...The Dems still control 2/3 of the legislative process...

Each narrative has some truth and has elections and opinion polls to back it up, nevertheless, I think the takeaway from this election is that the American People WANT RESULTS. Their expectations may be unrealistic, but the first party to be "in power" when the economy turns will become the victors. If it happens over the next two years it will be Mr. Obama who benefits. But if we are stuck with 9% unemployment and a stuttering economy, the President is in trouble. Better than that and we got an (new) election on our hands.

Personally, I'm disappointed with the parties in power. We have significant issues--health care, the economy, the deficit and national debt, two wars--but neither party wants to tackle them. The GOP claims to be serious about the deficit, but that's absolute BS. They have not listed any serious changes to significant budget expenses (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, and Defense). It's big plus is that they won't go crazy with spending. Now the Democrats, well, they ain't doing much either. They won't touch the same budget items, but feel free to spend at will.

This isn't going to be a pretty two years.

The RACE...

Here in the Heartland (aka South Dakota... eat it Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Nebraska, etc...) we are having an intense US Representative race between Kristi Noem and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin. Both gots lots of money so we get to experience plenty of attack ads. And because ad time is cheap we get to see lots and lots and lots of ads. And because I watch old folks T.V. (e.g., Wheel of Fortune) they pile them on.

Anyway, the ads are getting a little ridiculous. Kristi attacks Stephanie as a Pelosi stooge, conflating procedural votes with real votes, to say that Stephanie votes with Pelosi 90% of the time. Even though Stephanie voted against the Health Care Bill, etc... On the other hand Stephanie's best attack is that Kristi has had 20 speeding tickets over 20 years... Umm... not that impressive.

I'm a bit stuck in this race. Generally speaking I'd prefer a conservative Democrat over a really conservative Republican. Both candidates say that they take the deficit and national debt seriously, but neither of them will tackle the elephant in the room... entitlement and deficit spending. And to make matters worse they both are for increasing farm subsidies. Sheesh. I got 2 weeks to decide and it ain't going to be easy.

The Indictment of President George W. Bush

I'm not, nor ever have been a Bush hater. I didn't vote for him, but I don't think he was some loon running amok. The Iraq War wasn't a net positive, but I understand the impetus and the seemingly necessity of taking care of rogue nations. Nevertheless, from a more fundamental point of view President Bush was a disaster. At a time when our nation needed (and could afford) fiscal/domestic leadership, he flushed it down the toilet.

As the Mr. Douthat points out in a response to Mr. Mead's excellent post:

In hindsight, I suspect, the most damning judgment on the politics of the 2000s will be that our leaders (well, many of them, at least) misjudged how long they had before the fiscal crunch arrived. It was understood, throughout the decade, that once the baby boomers retired there would have to be an era of belt-tightening and fiscal retrenchment — but that moment still seemed a long (or at least a medium) way off, and the problem of the entitlement system’s sustainability seemed like it could wait for the late 2010s or early 2020s.

He goes on to say:

Looking backward, though, it’s very bad news for the legacy of George W. Bush, whose fiscal record looks much more irresponsible in the cold light of hindsight than it did while he was in the White House. For a time, Bush’s hope for rehabilitation seemed to rest on the possibility of a decent outcome in Iraq, but now I suspect that even that won’t be enough to rescue his reputation: Both right and left bear responsibility for letting the 2000s slip away, but Bush was the decider, and his budgetary decisions look worse and worse with every passing day.

Alas.

Diversity and the Supreme Court

As widely reported President Obama has nominated Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States (or SCOTUS). Much ink has been spilled on your qualifications, her point of view (Democrat, but too much or too little?), her gender, and her religious affiliation (with her on the court we'd have 3 Jews and 6 Catholics).

However, one point that has been little discussed is the lack of geographical diversity on the court. With Ms. Kagan's appointment we have 4 justices from NYC, 1 from New Jersey, 2 from California. 1 from Georgia, and one from Indiana. That's 8 justices growing up within 50 miles of the ocean. This isn't necessarily bad, but it does highlight a true diversity "issue." Nine justices can't represent the whole country, but it's a worrying trend when justices aren't familiar with rural areas, don't really know what a starry night looks like, and have no experience with life in the middle of the country.

........................
For some interesting analysis read David Brooks, who highlights the problem of our nominating incentives. I'm also with Matthew Yglesias who argues that we should change the lifetime appointment to 15 years.  

Money Money Machine...

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court expanded "corporate personhood" and allowed unlimited spending on political campaigns (but not for politicians). Like most change in politics, this news brought lots of hyperventilating...it's the end of the world and Exxon is going to buy all politicians from here to Timbuktu. I'm not so sure. As highlighted in Marginal Revolution, from a paper by Stephen Ansolabehere, John de Figueireido, and James Snyder.

Finally, we illustrate that when one controls for unobserved constituent and legislator effects, there is little relationship between money and legislator votes. Thus, the question is not why there is so little money politics, but rather why organized interests give at all. 

Now there are some problems with this paper because it only accounts for direct campaign contributions (from individuals, PACs, etc...) and doesn't address 507 spending. Nevertheless, the study holds true with my experience of politics. At the end of the day we still have one vote for one person. The hyperventilaters assume that people are idiots. I don't think they are idiots and I don't think this is the end of the world.