Over ten years ago, Barack Obama was in a bar…
I’m not of the school of thought that considers politicians any more corrupt than the general population. Surely, there’s a dud here and there, but I believe most politicians–though perhaps more ambitious than your average joe–are of strong enough character. Barack Obama is example a politician of particularly strong and noteworthy character.
A story I first heard on BBC radio and written-up here (though the radio version is better), describes Obama’s behavior in 1997 when he attended his sister-in-law’s wedding in London. As is the custom here, before the wedding the men went out for a bachelor party (called “stag party” in Britain). Obama went along. All was going well enough, drinks flowing, until a stripper showed up. At this point the party relocated to a more secluded area of the bar and Obama made his exit. As the stripper began whatever strippers do, Obama left, went downstairs for a drink at the public bar and then returned to his hotel room.
Over ten years ago, in another country, before you tube and digital pictures, before out-of-control 24/7 news sites, Barack Obama made a decision to leave a party that had gone too far. By doing so, he surely alienated himself from the crowd–can you not imagine what those stag party attenders might have said to him as he left. But he left, had a drink by himself in a foreign bar. And he showed his strong and upright character.
No politician is perfect because none of us is perfect. Certainly, Obama has his flaws. But as this story shows, Obama stands up his values even at the risk of public embarrassment. He is of sound moral judgement. For that, and many other reasons, Obama has my vote.
photo from Obama’s flickr stream under CC license
Yes We Can
I know I’ve been putting up a lot of posts recently, and I really want to get back to the Bible Guest Posts series, but today is Super Tuesday, so I can’t help myself from posting this video–after all, Michelle Obama sent me an emailing requesting just that.
Can you imagine a similar video about anyone but Obama? McCain is a great guy, but can’t inspire like this. Clinton has spiffy policies, but can’t unite the nation. Romney is smarmy. Obama has unique qualities to inspire, deliver, and substantially change America.
The world is watching
I can report, after reading this NY Times article, that the Scottish are following the US elections as closely as the rest of the world. Primary results head BBC newscasts. I’ve been in many a conversation about the race, the candidates, and how our election system works in general–I think someone called our process “the longest election process in a modern democracy.” Others are interested in Obama as black, or Clinton as a woman.
I’m happy to give my perspective (though I don’t explain my eschatology claims as fully as here), but such conversations never lead to much substantive discussion of policies. Similarly, today’s Times article noted folks around the world knew specific policies only when they were of particular interest–Israel’s for Clinton, apparently, Mexico likes Obama, India wants anybody but Bush.
I wouldn’t expect citizens of other countries to be up on the particular policy proposals of US presidential candidates, but I wonder, does the average American know much more?
Most of the American media coverage I see from here presents a very fluid picture of the race. There needs to be something to fill the 24/7 news space, so not particularly meaningful things hit the news and make the headlines–another Bill jab, what Huckabee is eating these days, whether Romney is wearing a tie–and real policies and positions are lost in the fuss.
For example, the candidates have presented their policy positions on same-sex marriage and same-sex unions. These positions were made clear years ago, and the candidates would be crazy to change them now. But an important issue, since it’s static, rarely makes the headlines. Static positions don’t sell newspapers, or get web hits, or television viewers.
Perhaps this is just the way of the primaries, and the general election will present us with a more substantive debate. Somehow, though, I’m a bit skeptical about that. For now, I’ll sit back and watch the world’s coverage, yearning for a discussion of static policy rather than fluid fluff.
Photo by Gabriel Pico.
Updated Jan, 27 after lunchtime in Scotland:
In an endorsement of Obama today in the NY Times, Caroline Kennedy writes,
Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.
Check out her larger article here. I guess Kennedy is right, Clinton and Obama’s overall goals are similar. However, Obama’s non-policy goals of changing the way in which we do politics, giving a new generation hope in our country, and embodying a testament to how far our nation has come since Selma, shows how essential other matters are. Is “hope” a policy matter? I guess not, but it sure affects policy.
Funny stuff
After not watching much election coverage in Scotland, it was a bit overwhelming to get it 24/7 at home. In fact, “24/7” is even not extensive enough a description as there were many times when Ian and I were watching news coverage on the television while at the same time reading, watching, or listening to coverage online.Here’s a Daily Show clip on the sometimes glitzy, sometimes inane ways the networks covered the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.
[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.453369&w=425&h=350&fv=videoId%3D147326] from www.thedailyshow.com posted with vodpod
Vote Obama for Eschatology
I voted for President today. Since I’ll be in Scotland for Georgia’s February 5th primary election, I filled out my Dekalb County absentee ballot today. Leave it to a seminary student to choose a candidate on the basis of a theological doctrine, but that’s the best explanation for my decision.
Barack Obama is the candidate who embodies eschatology; his campaign is one of eschatological hope.
Now I could describe how Obama’s policy positions most clearly match mine, but that’d be boring and folks everywhere will be blogging about such things. Instead, here’s why Obama is the eschatological candidate.
I know this might seem a bit of a stretch. Obama doesn’t talk about the end times. He’s made no indication as to when he considers Christ to be returning. He hasn’t weighed in on how he reads the book of Revelation. But, in my estimation, Obama does function with a clear eschatological underpinnings.
To understand we must separate the strict definition of eschatology from how Christians live eschatologically. My working definition of eschatology is something like, “a theological doctrine having to do with end things; end things as both, 1) the actual final ending of the world and its inhabitants, and 2) final goal or purpose of all things” (credit to George Stroup for that definition).
In mainline churches at least, recent times have seen a dearth of eschatological consideration. We don’t want to be construed as those evangelicals who might read the Left Behind series a bit too carefully. We don’t want to be seen as preparing for a specific time or place of Christ’s return. So, for fear of mislabeling, we don’t talk about Christ’s return enough.
Eschatology is important because it focuses on hope–hope for Christ’s return, hope for the salvation of our individual selves and the renewal of all creation, hope for the fulfillment of God’s prophesies of peace and justice.
Now this hope doesn’t mean we throw up our hands and simply wait for all to be peaches and puppy dogs. Rather, we must work, with this hopeful perspective, for justice here and now. As Cullmann wrote years ago, we at the same time focus on the already as well as the not yet of Christ’s coming. We celebrate that Christ has already come, and we wait in hope as the final redemption has not yet arrived. Now we must focus on hopeful active participation for Christ’s return.
Enter Obama. A republican strategist recently described him as “a walking, talking, hope machine.” His logo looks like a rainbow which, for Christians, reminds us of God’s covenant to Noah (or perhaps suggests Obama is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow). His website sells a shirt reading, “Got Hope?” and a bracelet decorated with the word “HOPE” and the rainbow logo. His grand book is entitled, “The Audacity of Hope” and Obama’s Iowa caucus victory speech contained the word “hope” fourteen times.
In this speech, Obama claimed that his Iowa victory will be remembered as the time when Americans remembered again what hope is. He then described hope in several ways, concluding,
Hope-hope-is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. Hope is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.
Now for slightly more fancy analysis. In his chapter on eschatology in his introduction to Christian theology entitled Faith Seeking Understanding, Dan Migliore goes to great lengths to show how the “doctrine of the last things” functions in every aspect of Christian theology. Eschatology is not a peripheral doctrine, but one so central that it connects every doctrine together. Hope, then, is integral to every Christian doctrine. For this white mainline contemporary theologian, hope is key.
Interestingly, the black theologian James Cone wrote over 30 years ago in a different but not discordant tone. Cone largely concurs with Bosch who affirms, “eschatology is related to action and change.” For Cone, writing in a time of overt oppression of his community, eschatological hope moves him to trumpet against accepting the present as acceptable. For this black theology writing 30+ years ago, hope necessitates action.
Barack Obama’s message is an inspiring and prophetic combination of Migliore and Cone–establishment and near-militant theologians–that skillfully mixes the message of Christianity with an American political platform.
So I voted for Obama, the eschatological candidate, for his message of hope affirms what I believe as a Christian.
Connect Online
