The Speculator

David Brooks is one of my favorite columnists because of his thought-provoking social insights. He seems more a sociologist than a journalist. You could probably entitle a collection of his most important columns “Popular Sociology.”

On the Jim Lehrer News Hour, he has often expressed his fondness for John McCain, and now he has formalized his endorsement in a piece entitled The McCain I Know.

In it he attempts to demonstrate that although John McCain is not a sophisticated conceptual thinker, his long experience in the Senate forced him to take on issues one at a time in an inconsistent manner: “One day he’s a small-government Western conservative; the next he’s a Bull Moose progressive.”

Brooks argues that McCain has successfully established “a half-century of evidence” as a “good judge of character” and as “a serious man prone to serious things.”

David Brooks believes that if John McCain is elected “he will run the least partisan administration in recent times.” He believes that although he is not able to express himself well and is inconsistent, McCain will prove to be a man of character who will seek to work with a wide constituency.

The biggest problem with Brooks’ argument is its own internal incoherence — that is, since McCain is inconsistent, he cannot be counted on in any given circumstance. What Brooks therefore must actually mean is, experience teaches us we can usually count on McCain. That does not mean we can count on McCain for the big decisions! For example, David Brooks does not think Sarah Palin was a wise VP choice because she is not ready to step into the presidency — that is a major blunder. So even by Brooks’ own standards, McCain is not a dependable decision-maker.

The McCain David Brooks knows is a man of character who is not guided by thoughtful principles and who makes inconsistent decisions on a case by case basis.

The Obama I Know

We all have been so saturated by this presidential campaign that many of us feel we know these candidates and have images of them in our minds based on what we have read and seen over these months. I have written about Obama in several blog entries ( 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 ) .

For me, the Obama I know can be summarized in this sentence:

Obama is a leader with character who is guided by liberal beliefs, which include not imposing his will on those he leads, but rather seeking their participation in an inclusive democratic government.

What this means is that all people have to do is get involved and their voice will count and they will have an effect on the outcome of any given decision. This is what he has been encouraging: participatory democracy from the grassroots upwards as the only way to save our nation. It is not enough to leave leadership to Washington. But when Washington must be involved, it should hear from everybody!

In terms of staffing his administration, it might look very similar to McCain’s. In many ways Obama and McCain seem quite similar on many fronts. But on the interior they are quite different. Although they both appear to be men of sincere Christian faith and character, McCain is more volatile and temperamental, while Obama is more steady and thoughtful. The difference between the two men is that simple.

The biggest thing about being president is making decisions.

Whose temperament is better suited for the presidency?

Who made the best call on whether to go into the war in Iraq?

Who should be the next president if the one who is elected in 2008 dies in office?

Answering these questions will tell you a lot about which way you should vote in November

.

Bella is not a perfect movie; but I think it’s an important one, and just about everything you would want in a film.

It is a bit choppy in its use of a creative mix of flashbacks and foreword-shots to force the viewer to discover what is happening a little bit at a time. This necessitates that the plot be kept simple so the viewer can figure it out, so the challenge is never overwhelming and more like putting a puzzle together. Just like the way you hear neighborhood gossip, in bits and pieces a little bit at a time in no special order.

Bella is the story of a young single waitress who gets fired because of a few absences caused by pregnancy related illness, and about how the restaurant’s chef is attracted to her and eventually adopts her baby. The plot is actually a good deal more complicated as it portrays the emotional and ethical struggles over abortion in their broader social context.

Many have seen this as a pro-life movie ( 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 ), because it takes a stand against the abortion trend; and in the positive sense of promoting the better option for choosing life it is indeed pro-life, since it illustrates how real human life is not some isolated existence – not the mere fact of existence as an embryo or as another body count statistic – but rather the quality of the interconnectedness of caring relationships that sustains us all, and which we each need.

But I would argue Bella is actually a pro-choice presentation when it comes to the politics of abortion.

The story works because it respectfully leaves the ultimate choice of whether to have an abortion in the hands of the mother; and it only works because someone was motivated to help the mother find a hopeful future for her baby. The rights of the fetus are not in focus, and quite properly, an emphasis on preventing abortion is not presented as the pro-life message.

Bella emphasizes that for a human being to thrive a child should have a loving family – a baby should be wanted. Social conditions need to exist where families and neighborhoods characterized by positive relationships can thrive. The mother had nothing to offer her child. The chef had all the connections for a rich family life.

Bella is pro-life in a positive sense. It is against abortion when you have an option to provide a viable family for your baby, an option the film recognizes not everyone has, though perhaps every pregnant mother wants it for her unborn child. And it demonstrates that it will take a lot of interpersonal love and caring outreach to unwed mothers to really address the challenge of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

I wonder how many pro-lifers really understand the social implications of this film. Or if they can still think their main responsibility is to protest abortion and just get laws against it passed? There really is a big difference between simply being against something and taking action to reduce the need for it.

How can we help reduce the pressures that lead people to see abortion as the solution to their problems? There are a wide range of preventive and alternative measures that could reduce the abortion rate, and there is also a need for more preschool options to support working families as children grow older and young families continue to need support at the most vulnerable time of a child’s development.

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.

Pro-choice means allowing mothers to choose a real life for their child.

Supporting pro-choice means promoting a social environment where children will be wanted, cared for, and where they can thrive.