Victor Davis Hanson observes in a recent blog that Obama’s, “Bush did it” declaration does not constitute a foreign policy. It is consistent, however, with his I'm not Bush response to the troubled economy. It also remains true to his entire presidential campaign theme: Change (from those dreadful Bush policies.) I think history will record his handling of the Gulf oil disaster as very un-Bushlike as well: the Bush response to Katrina, though clumsy at times, was operational within seventy-two hours; Obama took fifty-two days to get rolling on the spill (in equally clumsy fashion, it seems.)
One third of the way through his first term as President, Obama is still defined largely by what he is not. He is not, for example, patriotic. He chose to spend Memorial Day vacationing in hometown, Chicago, rather than appearing at the ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery (another sad story sits there.) While he did bend to pressure to wear a US flag pin occasionally, he still displays the “crotch salute” while others around him either salute or place their hands over their hearts honoring the flag in public ceremonies. He continues to apologize for American exceptionalism like a lonely schoolboy craving acceptance whenever he speaks abroad.
Nor is Obama demonstrably Christian by biblical standards, despite his assertions to the contrary (see his 2008 interview in Christianity Today.) Again, he is certainly not Bush. Whatever one thought about Bush policies, there was no doubt as to the role his faith played in his governing. Obama seems to consciously avoid linking faith to actions. This may be due to the nature of his faith; though he denies affinity with Reverend Wright, he did spend twenty years listening to militant black liberation theology. Perhaps he shields the public from his faith because it would alienate about ninety-seven percent of the population. Or perhaps we should pay more attention to his statements that Islam and Christianity are equally worthy of respect. Perhaps he cannot act on faith because he does not have one.
This defining by negation is quite normal. People used to define Christians as those who “don’t smoke; don’t chew; don’t run with girls who do.” More recently Christians seem to be defined in our culture as those who are not tolerant, not politically correct, not modern, and not open-minded. I wonder if we took pains to be more proactive to define ourselves by actions if we could change that perception. What if we were gracious, forgiving, kind, loyal, hardworking, and truly loving in the I-did-this-just-for-you Jesus kind of way? What if the fruit of the Spirit was the taste we left in our wake? What if we elected people who stood FOR something instead of embracing change for change’s sake? “Throw the bums out,” is a popular sentiment these days. I agree that we need to clean house; let’s just be careful about whom we put in their place.
Well said Harvard. :)
ReplyDelete