Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas?

Evangelical Sell-outs If you go into a Wal-Mart this holiday season, you will be greeted with a barrage of "Merry Christmas" signs, banners and other advertisements. You see, somehow it is better in the minds of religious conservatives to use the name of their Lord and Savior to sell $10 T-shirts made by children in poorly-ventilated developing countries than the generic “Happy Holidays.” I truly believe that when Jesus was upon the cross, being tortured and spat upon, he was thinking to himself that it sure would be great if his birthday could be used one day to sell a DVD player. The question shouldn’t be if we are commercializing Christmas, but if evangelicals are commercializing Christ. Christmas is a celebration of the birth of a savior, yet evangelicals are fighting tooth and nail to have “Merry Christmas” plastered above every Extreme Tickle-Me-Elmo and totally awesome new Staind CD. Why in the hell are Christians, who claim to be so passionately devoted to the life and teachings of one man, willing to see his name used to sell everything under the sun? If I were a church-going evangelical, I would be up in arms that Wal-Mart has the audacity to use the most holy name in my religious tradition to make money! Seriously, does anyone believe that this was a moral decision by Wal-Mart or any other mega-retailer? Surely there was some accountant team that crunched the numbers – the amount of free press they would receive, the amount of praise they would receive on Christian radio and TV stations. And someone somewhere said that they would make more money by using the phrase “Merry Christmas” than the phrase “Happy Holidays.” That’s the whole reason for the season for retailers – mammon. And if they can get more of it by exploiting the religious convictions of some people, then why not? Especially if they will be supported by the very people that they are exploiting. For Christians, the name of Christ should be revered and hallowed. Jesus should be spoken about with reverence and humility. And his birth should not be used to line the pockets of CEOs and huge corporations. Religion ought to be intensely personal, to be shared by a person and his or her diety. And I believe firmly that everyone has a right to believe or not believe what they want. So congratulations to all the shrilling evangelicals who pressured retailers to use the phrase “Merry Christmas.” You have succeeded in the further commercialization of Jesus. Season’s greeting and happy holidays to you!

Happy Market-based Greeting The season has come – I mean winter of course – and with it the modern American debate of what exactly goes on during December and early January. Based on the suggestion of American liberals, we are in the midst of the “Holiday Season.” After all, when Wal-mart and many other major retailers returned to the “Merry Christmas” greeting this year, my liberal friends, such as Dan, expressed disappointment that they were caving to the ethno-religio-culturocentric right-wingers who threatened boycotts over the Happy Holidays trend. I, for one, do not care how you greet me when I walk through the door. But what makes me a little upset, is the lack of consistency from the liberals. It amazes me to hear them clamor for freedom of speech for pornographers and terrorists, but when it comes to religious greetings, then everything is offensive. I am convinced that if you own the place, you can have your employees greet people however you want. If you want your employees to say, “Bah-humbug,” or yell “Not another one,” when a paying customer gets in line to checkout, I think that is fine – it is after all, your pocketbook. So, when I, the generally Republican, extremely WASPy, and apparently, according to Dan, anti-choice, hate mongering, speech limiting conservative/libertarian walks through the door into your fair trade, environmentally conscious, Greenpeace loving, anti-Bush, hemp curtain hanging, liberal gift shop this December, you greet me however you want – say “Happy Holidays,” “Happy Hanukkah,” “Happy New Year,” “Happy Kwanzaa,” “Happy Winter Solstice,” or make up your own holiday to celebrate, but please, do not limit the choice of other companies who find “Merry Christmas” to be the best greeting for their stores. And if you choose not to shop at those places, fine, but quit making silly claims about how offensive it is to say “Merry Christmas” to a Jew or an African-American. Clearly, those of us who celebrate this season for the Christmas part of it are not going to, and according to most liberals are not allowed to, be offended when someone greets us with Hanukkah or Kwanzaa. If liberals really want to be culturally sensitive, start campaigns to help Americans learn about other cultural holidays, like Diwali, which is one of the most exciting celebrations in India that just passed us in October. Diwali, the “Festival of Lights,” is greatly anticipated both for its fireworks and deep cultural heritage. Do something constructive rather than expend your energy whining about how offensive it is to hear a religious reference while you are busy shopping to give Christmas presents or Hanukkah presents to your family and friends. No one buys Holiday presents anyway! Finally, if there is one greeting that would inspire me to patronize your shop and pay a premium for your goods, it would be to hear in unison from all your employees, “Happy Festivus, it’s a Festivus for the Rest of Us!”

Is Victory in Iraq Possible?

Dead Money I like to play poker. And I must admit that I am pretty damn good. And like every other gambler I know, the words of Kenny Rogers run through my head from time to time: "You gotta know when to hold 'em; know when to fold 'em. Know when to walk away and know when to run." I know that in order to win in the end, I have to fold great hands when things go sour on the flop and turn. It has been 1,300 days since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in the flight suit media stunt on an aircraft carrier off the California coast. President Bush’s hand was looking pretty good. The U.S. had a quick and decisive military victory in Iraq, easily taking Baghdad and even capturing Saddam. If victory was overthrowing Saddam, then that has been accomplished. If victory is installing a new government, then that has been accomplished. So why are we still there? Obviously, poor planning and poor execution in peace-building by the administration has been the major problem. But the question remains: why can’t we leave? Psychologically, leaving now looks weak to this administration. President Bush staked his legacy on the outcome of Iraq. And he cannot stand to look weak – just look at the image he tries so hard to portray. He is the rugged cowboy, the plainspoken good ol' boy from Texas who likes to clear brush from his ranch. He's a man's man, and men never, ever retreat when things get bad. At least, that is the thinking of this administration. But pulling out of Iraq is not showing weakness. Seeing the whole situation and dealing with reality, acting with intelligence and clarity of thought is not weak. Refusing to take your head out of the sand, Mr. President, and face the tough reality that your incompetence created – that is weakness at its worst. Mr. President, we cannot win in Iraq. There is a civil war there because you didn’t plan well enough before the war. You and your administration ignored the advice of learned men and destroyed a country with no plan on how to rebuild it. The only option we have left is to find the best way to get out. Mr. President, listen to the advice of Kenny Rogers. It’s time to fold the hand and cut our losses. That does not mean we give up on the "War on Terror." The U.S. should use every legal means possible to stop terrorists around the world. It just means that you must find the best way to get out of Iraq without causing any more damage. In poker, it's called "dead money" when you thrown money into a pot that you have no chance of winning. Unfortunately, Bush's stubbornness in Iraq has led to and continues to lead to dead bodies.

Freedom and Self-governance Asking if victory in Iraq is possible is something of a silly question and we all know it. After all, when we leave, we will declare victory, or at least, the party in charge at the time will declare victory. The devil in this case is in the definition. Militarily we declared victory over the army of Hussein's; politically we declared victory when Iraq had its first democratic election. But continued insurgency, regional instability, and political unrest make these hollow declarations. Henry Kissinger recently suggested that a stable and viable government in Iraq is not an achievable target for the United States, and frankly, I agree with him. Certainly, the ethnic and sectarian tensions and divisions are problematic and the influx of radical Islamic insurgents from neighboring regimes is worrisome, but the true pandemic that will unseat any progress made by the United States runs much deeper. In making this next statement, I am not suggesting that this is a permanent situation, but for the foreseeable future I believe it to be true. The Iraqi people do not have sufficient desire for independent self-government. They are not rising up to fight for a common goal. They are not indignant that soldiers from other nations are killing Iraqi police and civilians. They seem unable to set aside differences to defend their nation. In this environment, true victory is unsustainable. The United States exists because its people believe, deep in their core, that regardless of party lines or policy differences, we have the right to determine our own future as a nation. We are living free because we are willing to die to protect that belief. Iraq may or may not be important for national security. But the fact that we believe national security is a sacred principle gives us the power to rule ourselves. Unfortunately, the people of Iraq are not convinced that they have individual rights. They still take their guidance from religious and community leaders who exercise radical power over how decisions are made. Pastors, Priests and Rabbis in the US can not demand obedience in the ballot box on pain of death, but in Iraq some of them can. As I listen to my friends who have served our nation on the ground in Iraq, they confirm this belief that I hold. They tell me that the worldview and perspective of Iraqi citizens is one of following and acquiescence not independence and liberty. Until their minds are free, their government can never be free. And until then, our efforts to make them free will only end in defeat. Self-governance is not the natural human condition. Self-governance is a right that must be wrested from those who would steal your liberty and imprison your soul. We stand against tyranny because we are convinced that each individual has value and capacity. This is a week to be thankful and I am thankful that my fellow Americans - Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Independent - all share the vision of living free.

In Memoriam
This week, we note the sad passing of economist Milton Friedman. Friedman was a staunch supporter of the free market and limited government, even when those ideas were unpopular. A hero to conservatives and libertarians, Friedman was one of the greatest thinkers of the past 100 years. He won a Nobel prize in economics and advised both President Nixon and Reagan.

Milton Friedman died on Thursday, Nov. 16, 2006.

Is This Power Shift Sustainable?

The 2006 election is the biggest power shift in D.C. since the "Contract with America" in 1994. Republicans maintained control of both houses of Congress for 12… long… years. So as the results were coming in last Tuesday I couldn’t believe my eyes. Not only did we Democrats break our losing streak in the House, but we also took the Senate! Now the question remains: Can we keep control? I’m happy today, but I have the sinking feeling that Justin will call me in two years laughing at my return to the default position of modern Democrats: disappointment. Democrats are scattered across the political spectrum and have no unified plan for moving forward. The American people will quickly lose faith in our ability to lead, then Republicans will pounce on freshman Representatives in two years and probably take back the House if not the Senate as well. We took Congress back with no coherent plan for domestic policy (except the pledge not to cyber-hump teenagers), about 300 different plans on how to win/withdraw/pullout/redeploy in/from Iraq and when our most recent presidential candidate bungled a joke by making the punchline, "Our troops are morons," a week before the election. The problem is that Democrats still don’t know what they stand for. Republicans had a robust plan and a unified party when they took control of Congress in 1994. There was drive and energy and ambition. While that ambition eventually led to their downfall, they moved the conservative agenda forward while in power. There is no coherent Democratic platform. "We’re not them!" is not a platform. We have pro-life and pro-choice Dems. We have pro-gun and pro-gun control folks. Some support gay marriage, some support civil unions and some defend "traditional" marriage. Sure, there is a plan for the first 100 hours. College tuition, prescription drugs, minimum wage and stem cells among other things. But after the hundred hours is over, what next? There is no plan for immigration. There is no plan for how to handle Iraq. Is there going to be any movement on the environment? Do we raise taxes or decrease spending to balance the budget? With so many conservative Dems coming in and so many old-school liberals still around, there is great potential for two years of infighting and squabbling. It’s already starting with the flap over Murtha or Hoyer for majority leader. And we’re not even in power yet! If infighting continues, the American people will soon get fed up with Democratic leadership. How can we expect to lead a country if we can’t even lead our own party forward? While I disagree with Republicans on many issues, they are definitely organized and disciplined. Republican talking points make the rounds at every level, from the White House to the Senate to talk radio. They are a political machine that broke down because of corruption, but if they can do some repair work in the next two years, we’re in trouble. If the Democrats start to splinter and bicker, Republicans will pounce on every vulnerable first-term Democrat and find about 85 new ways to call them weak on security. If there is even the smallest increase in taxes (despite the skyrocketing deficit and debt), Republicans will tell horror stories of taxing Americans to pay for the crack habits of promiscuous welfare mothers or some other slightly racist scare tactic a la Harold Ford '06. Democrats have a chance to lead this country, an opportunity to move forward – please please don’t squander it.

Without question, this election finds our nation at the crossroads of power. The outcome two years hence, in my opinion, will depend, not on the mood or mindset of the American public, but on the character and vision of our political parties. While attributing the words character and vision to our political parties may seem foolish or ignorant, this is a question of degrees not absolutes. The redefining power of the Contract with America was that it laid out objectives, goals and even timelines for implementation. This was better than continued rudderless leadership from a bloated, bureaucratic party with no discernable agenda. Over the following 12 years, the GOP has appeared to be more focused on an agenda of attainable, definable targets – national security, lower taxes, and an economy encouraging small businesses. The last 2 years have proven what many suspected to be true since 2002; the GOP has become what it claimed to be fighting in 1994. And so the Democrats have become better, by degrees, than the GOP. Neither party is particularly visionary, because, pragmatically, they realize that true vision is easy to kill, execution style, in the bureaucracy of Congressional subcommittees. The last great attempt at true reform was when Bush proposed a way to completely revolutionize Social Security. We all saw how easily his opponents ripped through an idea that most financial experts, in theory, would support and the great momentum of the status quo rolled on. There was no meaningful or serious debate about how to change or improve Bush’s radical idea, but rather, political energy was seized by playing on the fears and worries of us voters that Bush would bankrupt the system and destroy the lives of current seniors. Political pragmatism always wins; political ideology dies and takes the ideologue with it. Democrats campaigned on simple premises – raise the minimum wage, our policy in Iraq must change, etc. We, the voters, compared this platform of policy with a vague, unclear agenda from the GOP – support our troops (which means support the GOP), keep cutting taxes (not sure how or why), Bush is right (but we either will not or can not tell you why), we are the party of national security (Democrats are bad and if you vote for them, you will all die in your beds), and illegal immigration is bad (but half of us think it should continue, while those of us in border states think we should build a 40 foot high concrete barricade across the entire border with Mexico). This, inexplicably, looks to those of us who cast a ballot like a rudderless party with bloated, power crazed leaders who either do not care about the policies they are passing, or have not thought about what agenda is truly important. Is this hyperbole? Yes. Are the GOP leaders really heartless? Maybe. Just kidding, but the point is hopefully clear – we, the people of this country, respond to leaders who can clearly define and explain a vision and an agenda. This is why Bush beat Gore and Kerry, and it is why Clinton trounced Dole. If the GOP does not find engaged, energized and visionary leadership, they will continue to flounder and the Democrats hold on the reins of power will continue into 2008 and beyond. My vote for Congress this year was a write-in. I voted for Newt Gingrich. Not because he is running, and not necessarily because I think he is the great GOP hope in 2008, but for the single reason that he did something truly revolutionary in 1994. Newt laid out a plan and an agenda. He motivated both his peers and his country to believe that the GOP was different. His legacy changed the power structure in DC, but that legacy is now on life support, and without some serious soul searching, it could be in the grave after 2008.