Category: Politics

Breaking down the #HeGetsUs campaign

Easily the most talked about, and most controversial commercial during the Super Bowl was a product of the #HeGetUs campaign. The marquee ad, entitled, “Love Your Enemies,” ran during the second half, as all the parties would have settled into the game and begun contemplating who would emerge as winner.

As you can see above, the ad featured 60 seconds of photos of conflict underlied by a soulful bluesy song by John “The Ragin’ Cajun” Jones called “I’m Only Human After All.”

The most controversial aspects of the ad are hard to determine. The fact that an organization is running ads to promote Jesus proved to be in and of itself controversial, as pundits across the spectrum questioned whether Jesus would have bought a Super Bowl ad, and whether the money could’ve been better spent feeding the poor.

While the Bible teaches mercy and benevolence toward the poor, those who have actually read the Bible know that in the New Testament, Jesus set the spread of the Gospel and the making of disciples as the top priority for the churches.

Such criticisms have even led many to call for taxing churches. However, the funds for the ads did not come from churches, but rather came from David Green, founder of Hobby Lobby, who literally made his fortune selling beads to hippies and soccer moms, and who gives half of the profits of Hobby Lobby away every year to organizations who spread the Gospel and provide relief to those in need.

Would Jesus buy a Super Bowl ad? I don’t know. But I do know that He would be pleased His name was proclaimed to millions without the neglect for the poor.

The second point of controversy was the confrontational aspect of the ad. The images of protest and conflict conjured up emotions of rage toward those on opposite sides of the political spectrum from us, then the message blindsided us with “Jesus loved those we hate.”

This message refers back to the words of Christ spoken during the Sermon on the Mount, and echoed by Dr. Martin Luther King, that we are to love our enemies. Love your opponents, and those who work against you.

The objective in loving our enemies is twofold, (1) To identify ourselves as God’s people and (2) to see our enemies redeemed.

This concept goes against our human nature, so we find it offensive. Yet, it’s not only Biblical, it was mandated by the Lord Himself, in the red letters, in the New Testament. There’s no getting around it. We are supposed to love our enemies.

Thus, there was an implied call to repentance in the ad. And that will always draw backlash.

Perhaps the final, and most controversial aspect of the ad was this… that Jesus loves those we hate. We have been conditioned to think that our enemies, our opponents, those different from us, are inherently evil and should be defeated and destroyed.

That is why our political discourse is as inciteful and incendiary as it is today. It’s not enough to defeat your opponent in a debate or in an election, you must also destroy his life so that evil can be vanquished and peace can permeate the world.

This mindset is wrong, because it’s false (opponents need to be won over, not destroyed) and based on a faulty premise. The wrath of man cannot bring the will of God, nor can it generate His peace.

However, when cable news, columnists and talk radio have convinced you that the other side is the embodiment of evil, the idea that Jesus could love them is startling.

Furthermore, if Jesus loves them like He loves me, then could He side with them also? Could Jesus possibly disagree with me?

And those questions drive the faith community, which easily drifts into self-righteousness, crazy.

A Jesus that disagrees with us is a Jesus that we still need to repent and turn toward, whose views we still need to conform ourselves to. And that means that it’s not just those we see as being lost that are being called to repentance, but it’s ourselves also.

That’s a confession too few of us are willing to make. Thus, the controversy surrounding this ad was near universal.

However, that doesn’t mean that the group behind the ad made a mistake. In his book, “Leadership Not By The Book,” David Green discusses the need to be disruptive, to shake things up and get people’s attention.

This ad was definitely disruptive. It broke our conventional thinking into what an evangelistic ad should look and feel like, and it broke cultural norms about who we perceive Christ to be. That forces us to either deny the Gospel, or re-center on who Christ really is and believe the true Gospel.

And because of that, I find the #HeGetsUs campaign to be hitting all the right points.

What the Elwood Superintendent’s Decision Reveals about Societal Values

There are two words I was never allowed to say when I was in school, “Yeah, but….”

The words, “Yeah, but…” usually accompanied an excuse I had for a misbehavior, a bad decision, or a reasoning for why the other kid should be in worse trouble than me. In fact, in my mind, the other kid’s behavior was often so much worse than mine, that my infraction should be excused.

“Leland, did you just throw that paper ball at Billy?”

“Yeah, but…”

“No ‘buts.’ Out in the hall!”

I never got the opportunity to explain that I threw the paper ball at Billy because he made faces at me, pushed me into the dirt on the playground, or drew an ugly picture of me on manilla paper during art class. Nope. In this instance, the only thing that mattered was that I had violated class rules by throwing the paper ball at Billy, and so I had to face the consequence. Had I followed the correct course of action before throwing the paper ball, like telling the teacher that Billy was bullying me, then I would not be in trouble.

For what it’s worth, my story about Billy is a summary of several elementary school experiences rolled into one with a pseudonym of Billy as my adversary. I digress.

Public discourse today, whether social or political, is largely driven by the concept of “yeah, but.” For example:

Donald Trump bragged about groping women. “Yeah, but, Bill Clinton was a predator, too.”
“The Republicans expanded the size of the Federal Government and centralized power within it.” “Yeah, but the Democrats are worse.”
“Tom Brady cheated by deflating footballs.” “Yeah, but everybody cheats. Tom just got caught.”

Lost in all the “Yeah, buts…” is the truth. There is a standard of morality, a standard of behavior that we are right to expect from one another, especially when one’s actions affect the livelihood and well-being of another. However, the tribalization of America has led to a mentality of “winners and losers” where we feel the need for our side to be the winners, no matter the effect on everyone else. And this is what will ultimately pull our country apart.

Nowhere can this be better illustrated than the case of Elwood School Superintendent Casey Smitherman, whose decision to seek medical treatment for a student while filing it on her insurance led to her facing criminal charges and ultimately led to her resigning her position with the school.

According to the Herald Bulletin of Anderson, Ind., Smitherman:

She didn’t get permission from the boy’s guardian or parents to take him from the house, cart him around town and seek medical care for him.
The superintendent was alone with the teen in a car, a major no-no for school staff and administrators.
She committed fraud by claiming that the boy was her son so that she could use her health insurance to defray the $233 bill for the clinic’s care and antibiotics.
She didn’t report her suspicion that the boy was suffering from neglect. School staff and others who come into contact with youth through their jobs are required by state law to report such suspicion.

These are very serious infractions, not only on a technical level, but on a moral level as well. Yet, the internet is reacting to her actions by lauding her as a hero, and criticizing “big insurance,” Trump, Congress and the Republican Party for what happened.

Instead of looking at the entirety of the case, most of the internet is focusing on the fact that she took a kid to the doctor… and who wouldn’t want to see a kid taken care of? Therefore, she should be a hero.

However, the morality of Smitherman’s benevolence went out the window the second she shifted the cost of her humanitarianism to others, that is, those who pay premiums to her insurance company. When you consider that the cost of the care could have counted against her annual deductible and/or out of pocket expenses, you might even be able to make the case that her actions were a little self-serving.

If Smitherman wanted to provide healthcare for a student and did so out of her own pocket, then I can understand the admiration. However, lying about her relationship to the student to get the insurance company to pick up the tab is insurance fraud, and is not true benevolence.

That action can have widespread consequences to others, such as increased premium costs to other policy holders. Think about it. If it were moral and legal to file a claim on your health insurance by lying about your relationship to the patient, then few of us would need to buy insurance. We could simply find a friend with insurance, and mooch off their policy, the same way many people mooch off of each other’s Netflix accounts. Fewer people paying premiums with more claims means higher premiums, which will drive others off insurance. This is not a good situation.

Again, this is a serious infraction. Yet, many in our society are praising her. “Yeah, she committed insurance fraud, but we should’ve had universal healthcare in the first place.”

“Yeah, she committed insurance fraud, but Congress has failed the American people and should all resign.”

“Yeah, she committed insurance fraud, but at least she stuck it to a greedy corporation.”

I could go on. The “yeah, buts” are in plentiful supply.

Smitherman has since apologized for her actions, citing a lapse in judgment. I’m willing to forgive and move on. Sometimes decisions do sound good when made, and only after do you realize the full ramifications. However, to justify this behavior by pointing out the flaws elsewhere in our system with a series of “yeah, buts” is to concede that we are to remain on a trail of constant injustice until our whole moral fabric is completely unraveled.

Bad decisions cannot bring about good. Immoral decisions can not bring about morality. Darkness cannot drive out light. And sinful attitudes will not bring about revival.

Be understanding. Be forgiving. But be truthful.

PANIC!!!!!!

The late comedian Bill Hicks, whose stand-up routines offered fairly profane observations on life in the 1980s and early 1990s, was annoyed by the constant drumming of apocalyptic headlines by CNN.

“War, famine, death, aids, homeless, recession, depression,” Hicks chanted. “War, famine, death, aids, homeless, recession, depression. Then, you look out the window, and *crickets*.

“I want a (happy) Ted Turner newscast,” he continued. “‘Hey, everything’s great, here’s sports.”

Hick’s annoyance today could very likely expand to the Democratic Party, which has promised death and destruction with every piece of legislation, or executive action accomplished in 2017. Some of the farcical claims include:

-If the ACA is repealed, people will die in the streets.

-If net neutrality is repealed, people will die in the streets.

-If the individual mandate is repealed (the tax penalty levied on those who cannot afford insurance), people will die in the streets.

-The tax plan is the apocalypse.

-These tax cuts will have people dying in the streets.

Granted, these are hyperbole, but you get the idea. Still, I drive the streets in my neighborhood, and I haven’t seen one dead body yet. When is this mass extinction supposed to begin?

Now, I don’t mean to be partisan on this blog. In fact, I try to go out of my way to avoid beating the same political drums that form the cadence that is Talk radio and CNN.

Still, I am bothered by the fact that so much anger and fear can be galvanized so quickly by political operatives who have no real connection to the facts. Political action committees put out talking points, as do the leadership of both political parties, as do the political pundits, without really examining the details of the proposal.

The politicians need only give an 8-second soundbite to the news, and the political firestorms follows, all over issues that will have minimal impact on the daily lives of most Americans. Yet, to hear it said on TV, radio, in print, and on the street, “the end is near.”

Those at the top have no real incentive to change this dynamic. The votes of Congress are bought and sold by lobbying firms, regardless of which party is in power. As long as those lobbying firms continue to buy the elections of Congress, those elected have little reason to change, and the firms have no reason to change.

These same firms that buy the Congressional elections also invest in swaying public opinion, and they do so with much style and little substance, providing talking points to the media and members of Congress. So long as this model works, we will continue to see vitriolic political discourse and social volatility.

Therefore, it is our responsibility as individual citizens to break this cycle. It is up to us to demand more, and better information. It is up to us to demand accountability. It is up to us to research the candidates, and vote for the best candidate, not the best publicized candidate. If we continue our failure in this responsibility, then things will continue to get worse, because the current system is a multi-billion dollar industry making thousands of people rich.

Former FCC Commissioner Newton N. Minow once described television as “a vast wasteland,” saying that if you watched TV from sign-on to sign-off, a vast wasteland of sub-par programming is what you would observe. He said it was up to the public to demand better programming, adding that if the public continued to support bad programming, the vast wasteland would remain.

He said that no other bureau or agency could rectify the problem, that it was the duty of the American public to demand better. If they didn’t, then the vast wasteland would be their own fault.

The same holds true for our political system. As long as cable news ratings maintain, and lobbying firms continue to successfully purchase elections and votes, our political discourse will remain volatile, and the mass panic among the rank and file will continue. And we’ll only have ourselves to blame.

Primary election season starts now. Research the candidates, go to their public appearances, ask questions, then vote accordingly. Break the cycle, demand better.

Campaign 2018 – Time to Out-Conservative each other

Texas_State_Capitol_Summer_2005 Public Domain The filing window hasn’t even opened for candidates to secure a place on the primary election ballots for the 2018 mid-term elections, yet online political ads boasting of their “conservative credentials” are already dotting my Facebook feed.

This again.

In rural Texas, where I live, the Republican candidate in any race is going to win 70-90 percent of the vote. In suburban Texas, the GOP wins with 52-60 percent of the vote. Therefore, he who gets elected in Texas wins that office during the primary elections.

So, a Republican seeking office in Texas doesn’t need to convince his district he’s the right man for the job, he need only convince other Republicans he’s the right man for the job. And how does one do that? He convinces GOP primary voters that he’s not only conservative, but more conservative than the other guy.

Governor Greg Abbott So, we wind up with candidates from Governor all the way down to city dog catcher running on a platform of “I’m the only real conservative in the race.” Which is bad enough, but once the elections are over and the legislature convenes, the entire 140 day session is dedicated to helping the incumbents compile a conservative resume that will fortify them against any insurgent primary challenges in the coming election cycle.

Proof?

Currently, Texas education is in a pressure cooker. Expenses are skyrocketing due to increasing enrollment as Americans follow economic opportunities in the Lone Star State, and as state and federal regulations and requirements drive up their administrative costs.

One has to look no further than the stacks of paperwork it takes to get a kid signed up for the school year to see that the bureaucracy has been bloated by federal and state mandates, some of which have no more purpose than to provide political footing for special interests. Who pays for that bloated bureaucracy? The local districts.

The Teacher Retirement System is always on the brink, and with the skyrocketing costs of healthcare (driven by the Affordable Care Act) and infrastructure improvements, the state has no additional funding to offer schools.

It’s a complex problem that will take hearings, investigations and real legislative initiative to unwind. But taking on an issue like that does not build conservative cred, so the legislature argues about bathrooms.

Bathrooms. I find it ridiculous that we even have to legislate this issue. I supported the bathroom bill, but the whole issue is brought up to give conservative lawmakers the opportunity to build conservative credentials for the upcoming election, and to undermine those who aren’t “on the team.”

The Republicans won Texas during the 1990s with a message of limited government, expanded personal liberty, and a cultural revival (through tough on crime initiatives and pro-family initiatives.)

At this point, the Texas Republican Party is at the height of its power in Texas. The party hasn’t wielded this much power since Reconstruction. We have a real opportunity to reform the Texas government in a way that opens up even more economic opportunity, expands and improves public education, and protects the rights of the individual.

We have the opportunity to present, and execute a vision of Texas that will elevate the standard of living for all involved.

However, that vision will never be illuminated nor realized if our political discourse doesn’t progress beyond who is the most conservative. With more blue-state voters moving into Texas, the clock is running out for the GOP to get it together.