Oratory

I laughed, I cried, I forwarded it on. So here I also post it.

Financial Wars

I think that apocalyptic concerns about the relationship between wars and economic downturns are slightly exagerrated, but I want to take the relationship between war and economics in a slightly different direction.

There have been a lot of comparisons and critiques thereof of our current economic situation and the great depression of the 1930's. Likewise, there have been a lot of comparisons and critiques thereof of the way out of the economic doldrums, with some suggesting that it was government spending in the shape of the new deal that lead the way out of the dirty thirties, while others suggest that it was in fact the industrializing and expenditures associated with the second world war which were responsible (these are, admittedly, very general statements).

I wonder if the debate on whether it was social spending or war that brought us out of the doldrums is really the most important one to be having, or whether more attention should be paid to the increase in bottom line government budgets which took place in the 1930-40's and what seems to be the next step forward in increasing the size of government budgets. I'd like to see some more discussion in Canadian dialogue as to whether or not we are comfortable increasing the amount of money (and it's our money after all) being spent by the state as an institution. And, let me be clear, I am not necessarily making a libertarian argument, nor a partisan one. After all, the Conservative government in Canada has proven to be the biggest spender in Canadian history.

For explicit discussion: do we feel comfortable with what seems to be a giant step up in state expenditures? What does that mean for us as citizens, for our communities that are not the state? Does it strengthen them, or weaken them? Is it just? Winston Churchill was uncomfortable with it as war loomed, and then progressed. Then it became normal. Is the discomfort many of us are feeling about such massive government expenditures about to become the new normal?

Top Mags: The IR Edition

In response to Viator, I want to add what I think are the top magazines/journals that thinking Christians should be reading about global politics. These are not academic journals, and you don't have to be in the discipline to discern "what the hell these people are talking about." They are top opinion repositories, and while there are plenty that could merit attention I will mention my favourite three that I read cover to cover:

Unquestionably Foreign Affairs is the leading journal of ideas and opinion in IR. It's articles are written by people from across the spectrum, in both academic and political positions of influence. While the non-specialist might have difficulty reading each issue cover to cover, the broad range and contemporary relevance of topics will undoubtedly satisfy almost any reader. It's balance and weight make it the logical first stop.

Foreign Policy, while a far more popular and glossy magazine, is like the Time or Macleans magazine of the foreign policy world. It has no pretensions of being academic, no desire to pump its issues with 'big names' and IR pop stars, but succeeds at being accessible, relatively balanced, mainstream and providing stories with a very broad range of interest. It's trademark indexes are always a good time, and it's designed to make global politics interesting to the non-specialist. For this reason it's a bit of a guilty pleasure to folks in IR academia, but that's only if those folks are too impressed with their substantial intellectual girth to realize that its mediums like this that actually capture popular imagination. For that reason, I include Foreign Policy in my list.

The Review for Faith and International Affairs, put out by the Institute for Global Engagement, is one of the best resources I have ever come across for thinking about religion and global politics. Written in public language, and intended to appeal to a broad audience, the initial impression is that the journal is more academic. However, browsing through the reader will find that the writing is accessible, and while some pieces may be more narrowly specialist, most of the content is for broad interest. Not only does this Review position the topic of religion and international politics on the radar, but it regularly addresses core questions of religion, pluralism and politics generally. The last issue dedicated to Islam and pluralism is an absolute must read for Christian thinkers. The Review succeeds where many fail: it creates a genuine dialogue with different religious perspectives on international politics, in a public space, while pursuing an integrated and fundamentally Christian view of justice: no small achievement.

Another Floundering Industry

Larry Flynt and other captains of porn feel the US government should allocate $5 billion to assist the flagging industry. Is simply being hurt by a downturn enough of a reason for government to provide a financial stimulus? Should some industries be allowed to die? When asked if in financial danger, Flynt (Hustler) and Francis (the CEO of Girls Gone Wild), said DVD sales were in decline but online traffic is on the ups. Sooooo, you're saying you don't actually NEED the money, but would like some because everyone else is getting some? That'll help your credibility.

I find this line particularly vile:

But the industry leaders said the issue is a nation in need. "People are too depressed to be sexually active," Flynt said in the statement. "This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex.

It's when the porn industry rides to the rescue of a faltering and confused North American sexual psyche that you know you're culturally bankrupt. Here's to hoping this request is relegated to the gutter.The piece can be found here.

Just War...

But for the framework to have the desired restraining effect on statesmen and warmakers, it has to marry practicality to idealism, and strike enough of a balance between the two to make it seem applicable to real-world crises. And if it's important not to stretch the theory to justify any goal or end you seek, it's also important not to narrow it to the point where it seems so unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of war that policymakers will feel comfortable ignoring it.

From a fascinating debate happening on the Atlantic blogs (this a post by Ross Douthat) and elsewhere. See also Andrew Sullivan's discussion of the same issue. I'll post my thoughts on this matter more, later, maybe after some riveting discussion following Adunare's paper.

One Generation to the Next

With the passing of the old year, generational change has been on my mind. I was discussing with a friend before the holiday that each generation has its own questions; or - to be more precise - its own way of asking timeless questions. Thus this or that way of forming the question may come and go in fashion, but the core of what we are looking for, the root of the perplexing problem, is not altogether very different from how it was in the past. Contra constructivists but ala Andy Crouch our words and ideas do not change the world, but they do create, cultivate and illuminate the substance of what is there in new and surprising ways.

Over the holidays my last surviving grandparent passed away, in relative peace in the Netherlands. Her expressions and ideas were very different from mine, as from my mother's, but the faithful expression she gave in her own time, before the face of God, certainly lives on both in the here and now, and in the time to come. How will the questions we ask, the answers we find and suggest relate to her own? In 2009 I am committed to becoming a better traditioner, less impressed with the new, the gaudy and the flashy, and more impressed with the historic, the timeless and the tested.

Shortly before, a monolithic figure in international relations scholarship also passed on. It would be difficult to overstate the impact that Samuel P. Huntington has had on the discipline, particularly his role in suggesting a tangible place for religion in IR, whatever we might make of it. He also leaves a towering legacy worth thought and reflection. Via A&L Daily:

Samuel P. Huntington, versatile scholar whose idea of a “clash of civilizations” was vastly influential, is dead at 81... Forbes... WSJ... Wash Post... London Times... Harvard

Ten Stories of 2008 You Didn't Hear & The Ten Worst Predictions of 2008

I admit it. I subscribe to Foreign Policy. It's flashy, easy to read, and full of interesting little factoids that - while at times questionably framed - are all too much fun for my bad social science self to give up.

I don't think I'll renew my subscription (but then, I didn't think I'd reread all of Terry Goodkind's trashy fantasy blockbusters, and here we are - book 5 and counting). But even if I don't, there are at least two features that I think are enough fun to pass on:

The Top Ten Stories You Missed in 2008 and The 10 Worst Predictions for 2008.

Hey, indulge a little.

What the hell happened?

As asked by Gilles Duceppe when he ran into Mr. Dion in an elevator after his near miss Thursday night response. A disastrous series of events unfolds for the L of O in his almost-no show response to Prime Minister Harper. You really have to read the chronology to believe it.

Two thoughtful pieces about this absolute nuclear winter in Canadian politics in the last week: The Canadian Political Crisis, from John von Heyking at Lethbridge and Canada's Questionable Coalition, at C2C.

Munk Debates

I would *really* like to go to this tonight:

Munk Debate on Humanitarian Interventions: December1, 2008

Be it resolved that if countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma will not end their man-made humanitarian crises, the international community should...

For [+] Mia Farrow Gareth Evans

Against [-] Rick Hiller John Bolton

"The war creates no absolutely new situation; it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it. Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice" If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun. We are mistaken when we compare war with "normal life." Life has never been normal." It has always been an uncertain mix of greatness and misery, joy and heartache, long-term plans and sudden disasters.

Here. See also, here

A Christian Theory of Public Policy

I was reflecting with a colleague recently that the great challenge of the contemporary Christian university student is how to practice leadership - where the word has become abused as a sort of catch all for charisma or clear minded thinking. Leadership, he defined for me, was about being able to make a decision, when the choices seem equal. Don't talk to me about making the choice between the obviously right and wrong - he said - a child can do that! If we are serious about moral formation we must do more than train ourselves (and our students) to make the right call, we must learn how to make the tough call, to weigh it morally, and wisely, with rich resources and deep prayer - but to make it indeed.

I am especially impressed with Stephen Garber's idea of proximate justice. It belies the easy idealist puritanism of Christian youth. In the words of my colleague, if you're going to play in the sandbox you're going to get dirty. Absolute purity is a pursuit, not a state, and in its pursuit we must guard our integrity - negotiate as best we can the contradictions of life and our belief.

I find my own moral wisdom in short supply. I am impatient, at times arrogant, and look for the obvious right and wrong. I can always find that angle, because the (mis)information always exists for the uneducated to narrowly judge a complex problem - international politics is rife with it.

What are some of the resources at hand to ameliorate this? I want to suggest - and would love to hear feedback - that one of the best resources thinking Christians in public policy have is just war theory. Just War gives us resources to help think through how to take an unpleasant, broken, piecemeal action - how to morally and wisely weigh the contradictions, and then nevertheless to act.

The missing link for Christians in policy - in my opinion - is just such a broad based theory of policy: sophisticated theological tools that can be used to read, weigh, and provide decision making capacity to an idealist generation.

Could Just War be a departure for developing a Christian theory of public policy in a liberal democratic society?

Voter Abstinence

And for something a little lighter, care of a good friend: