Category: Politics

Posted on

On Glenn Beck and Restoring Honor

By Amy Spiegel

As a stay-at-home mom with no television access, the radio is a huge part of my news and entertainment world. I often spin the dial while cleaning or cooking, and catch a bit of talk radio. It not only keeps me in the loop, but keeps me company as well. Sometime post 9/11, I became a fan of the Glenn Beck Radio Program. This is back when Beck’s fusion of entertainment and enlightenment was heavy on the entertainment. I resonated with his conservative views and belly laughed at things such as “Moron Trivia.”

Over the years, however, the show and Beck have taken a decided turn towards the serious. I must confess to longing, at times, for a good prank call rather than hour upon hour of warnings and—is there any other word for it?—prophecies regarding the political and economic future of our country. Sometimes listening to G.B. is a bit like being in the mall with my kids when they spot some unfortunately overweight person and proceed to very loudly announce to all those gathered within earshot “Look Mommy, that man’s really fat!” You can’t really argue the facts of their case but it is certainly socially awkward to have it brought to your (and the rest of the mall’s) attention.

I have felt an increasing internal tension as I have listened to Beck’s calls for repentance and a return to our founding values. That tension did not resolve itself as I listened to much of the Restoring Honor rally he hosted in Washington D.C. this past weekend.  It wasn’t that I disagreed with any of the basic principles being expressed. I certainly think that our nation, both corporately and as individuals have plenty to repent of, but I am not comfortable with marrying my faith with my allegiance to my nation. Now don’t get me wrong: I certainly think that my faith should permeate every area of my life, those which would be deemed private and those which would fall into the public square. And since our country can be a moral agent for both good and evil, it seems appropriate that we have both pride and shame regarding our nation’s deeds. As I have listened to Mr. Beck call Americans to lives of honor, hope and charity (and expect those who “serve” as our leaders to do the same), I find I can only agree. As I have read the criticisms of those who oppose or are offended by him, I find a great lack of substantive examination and a great deal of name-calling and pettiness.

In the end, I support Beck’s ideals of restoring honor to the lives of our citizens. But I would hope that he would support the idea that it is not in the founders of nation but in the Creator of the universe where our ultimate hope lies. Whether or not we as a nation survive or perish, one day all nations will gather and we the people will discover what it is to be truly free.

Posted on

News Miscellany

By Jim Spiegel

I am a strong believer in small government, and here is one illustration why.  Also on the political front, check out Charles Krauthammer’s disturbing prognostications about potentially radical legislation coming this Fall.

Rick Warren recently injured his eyes while gardening.  He’s going to be okay.  In a Tweet Warren expressed his desire that God would be glorified through his pain, which surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly, given our therapeutic culture) has sparked some controversy.  See the comment string in this CT piece.

I’ve been reading a bit of Christopher Hitchens’ new horribly titled but brilliantly written memoir, Hitch-22.  Here is a small taste.  Like a lot of his writing, the book is droll, insightful, and self-absorbed.  In this case, the latter quality is appropriate—it is a memoir after all.

Posted on

A Congressman’s Assault

By Jim Spiegel

Like most folks, I was appalled at the recent assault of a student by Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC).  Granted, the student accosted him without warning and asked a direct question (“Do you fully support the Obama agenda?”) without prompting.  But to physically attack the young man in that way was simply unconscionable.  Why would Etheridge react with such hostility?  And why would he refuse to answer such a simple question?

So does Etheridge support the Obama agenda?  If nothing else, it appears that he is emulating the President regarding finding an “ass to kick”.  Pretty sad.

Posted on

The Black and the White (and the Grey) of the Arizona Immigration Law

By Amy Spiegel

Being a very black and white person myself, one of the things I find most frustrating about politics is the fact that often both sides of a particular political conflict have valid perspectives that are mutually exclusive. Our two-party system, brilliant in so many ways, doesn’t always allow for much grey. However, for my part, I see little grey involved in the recent brew-ha-ha regarding Arizona’s new illegal immigration law.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally, requires police officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine someone’s immigration status if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the country illegally, allows for lawsuits against local or state agencies who hinder the enforcement of immigration and law, and targets those who employ illegals as day workers. Now I am certainly no constitutional law scholar, but passing a law in order to prevent people from doing something that is already illegal seems pretty reasonable to me. So what has everyone’s panties in such a wad, especially since according to Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer the law mirrors that of the federal government? Here are some of the objections I have heard, along with my responses.

One of the most provocative complaints I have heard compares requiring people to carry proof of their immigration status to the Nazi requirement that Jews carry their “papers” with them. I haven’t heard people making the comparison to the Stars of David, but I am sure it is not far off. I would point out that those asked for this proof of status must have behaved in some manner requiring the intervention of law officers. Be it anything from speeding to breaking and entering, the person is already suspected of breaking the law before being questioned regarding their immigration status. I seriously doubt Arizona police have so much free time on their hands that they can go “cruising” for illegals. And even if they did have such an intention, the law specifically prohibits this. When I am pulled over by an officer, I am immediately asked for my driver’s license and registration. Why? Because it’s the law. So why is it any different for officers to request proof of immigration status?

Another common objection appeals to racial profiling. I was recently pulled over late at night near a college campus, and not only did the officer ask for my license and registration, he also dared to ask if I had been drinking. Was I being profiled? Did this officer have a prejudice against white women in their thirties? Was he implying that women fitting my profile are lushes? Given my location, the time of night, and even perhaps my limited driving skills, the question was a reasonable one. Now suppose a person is arrested. This implies that they are not a respecter of the law. According to the Arizona law, before the person is released they have to prove their status. Help me out here, folks. Where is the smoking gun of racism? As one leading sponsor of the law has stated, “‘Illegal’ is not a race; it’s a crime.”

For me, the issue seems simple: illegal immigration is illegal. Not only does it endanger the lives of our citizens by allowing unrestricted entrance into our country by those who might seek to do us harm; it allows for unspeakable abuse of those who come here seeking a better life for themselves and their dependents. This past year I read Enrique’s Journey, a horrifying account of the trials facing those who travel through Mexico, attempting to enter the U.S. Those who are “lucky” enough to reach the States are often taken advantage of once they are here. Being on the wrong side of the law, there is no one to turn to, no justice to be found.

Some would characterize those who favor the Arizona law as lacking compassion. I disagree, but what do I know? I’m just a speeding, middle-aged lush, right?

Posted on

Leading the Way to the Middle Ground

By Amy Spiegel

One of the cool, and often exasperating, things about being a parent is that you get to be somewhat omniscient. Not in the observing-the-thoughts-of-billions-people-at-once kind of way, but rather in the seeing-things-from-multiple-perspectives sense. Each time a disagreement breaks out in the bathtub or backseat, I have the privilege seeing both sides of the argument. (Okay sometimes at least one side of the argument consists of “Poo-poo head,” but even there, they might have a point, figuratively speaking that is.). Sometimes, though, it feels less like a privilege and more like a burden. Like an engrossed tennis spectator, I turn from one side to another, ping-ponging back and forth trying to establish peace on earth and goodwill toward men, or at least to prevent bloodshed at bath time. One of the most infuriating aspects of being the all-seeing eye in my children’s lives is that often those on both sides of a disagreement are right.

Whether it is my experience of the battlefield of parenthood or just a by-product of growing older, more and more I find myself questioning certain previously held ideas regarding conflicting points of view. Renowned for my overly opinionated nature, of late I have found myself not apathetic but perhaps sympathetic to both sides in some rather crucial areas of debate, all of which involve not just a matter of differing opinions but a difference of worldview. When your starting points are diametrically opposed, how can you ever come to an agreement? And if agreement is impossible to achieve, why bother arguing?

Don’t get me wrong. I haven’t turned relativist on you. When two people begin with the same assumptions and yet reach differing conclusions, I think debate a worthwhile exercise. For example, at a recent dinner party, a discussion arose over a character familiar to anyone in the single digit age range or those who spend a great deal of time with said age range. The debate concerned whether or not Dora the Explorer promotes a gracious attitude towards sinners or a permissive view of sin. One side argued that Dora’s loving approach to Swiper the Fox teaches children forgiveness and grace. The other side (also known as the people who are right about this issue) maintained that the show’s refusal to shun Swiper despite his lack of repentance teaches children that bad behavior reaps no bad consequences. Now, seen in a certain light, there is no reconciling these two views because there are aspects of truth on both sides. But one could also say that both views are like two sides of a coin, all part of the truth, just seen from different angles.

But what if you aren’t dealing in the same worldview currency? What if the assumed values are so incompatible that it is like comparing apples to oranges? Take the heated and historic political debate which has occupied the minds of so many of us over the past several months. On one side, you have people who believe healthcare is a human right; government intervention is necessary in order to reduce healthcare costs and provide everyone with coverage. On the other side, you have people who believe that extending the umbrella of human rights in order to include healthcare is a dangerous precedent; that tort reform is more appropriate than nationalizing the healthcare system. Of course, these views are held along a spectrum with few on the extremes of either end. Even so, it seems unlikely that many will meet in the middle. Ironically, it seems the trouble here is that both sides want to get to the same place (affordable healthcare for any who care to have it) but have chosen drastically different modes of getting there. While I have little tolerance for politicians engaging in bribery and deceit in order to ensure victory for their side, I feel empathy for those who sincerely desire to see change for the underprivileged and more opportunities for all. I keep asking myself, “If I were them and heard me (not as them but as myself), what would I (as them) think?” Maybe this is where we can learn something from our friend Dora. According to Wikipedia “Dora has a positive view of the characters she meets, failing even to hold a grudge against the mischievous fox Swiper… She acts against villains only when it seems that compromise is impossible, and even in these cases, fails to display actual anger.” It might seem a bit childish, but maybe there’s some wisdom there. Should we model this approach? Well, then, as the theme song goes, “You can lead the way! Hey! Hey!”

Posted on

The Best and Worst of 2009

By Jim Spiegel

It’s been another exciting year, and we want to thank you all for reading and, if applicable, posting comments on our blog.  Once again, we would like to close out the year with summary remarks about good and bad stuff related to film, music, books, politics, and family. 

Best Film Experiences:

  • Jim:  Slumdog Millionaire, Inglourious Basterds, and The Blind Side. Three very different films with one thing in common: a compelling story.  See my March 2 post for extended comments on Slumdog, and our joint review of Inglourious Basterds in our October 29 post.  As for The Blind Side, I confess that I went to see it begrudgingly, figuring it would subject me to two hours of eye-rolling melodrama.  On the contrary, this simple but powerful film had me in tears the entire evening.  And I’m no sentimentalist…
  • Amy:  Jim chose the ones you’ve heard of, so here are a few older ones you might not have seen: 1927 Academy Award winning Sunrise.  I am not a big fan of silent films but this one is amazing, a perfect movie. Another oldie but goodie is The Red Shoes.  Finally, Murder!  I am slowly working my way through all the works of Hitchcock and this was one I marked off the list this year.  It’s classic Hitchcock, which is to say, suspense with heart and soul.  Finally, this one isn’t an oldie, but since I spend a great deal of time watching children’s films I will give a shout out to my friends Charlie and Lola.

Worst Film Experiences: 

  • Jim:  Little Children—Three of my pet peeves in contemporary Hollywood films are:  1) stilted dialogue, 2) gratuitous sex scenes, and 3) plotlines that encourage viewers to root for a character to commit adultery.  Well, this movie features all three of these vices.  Some thematic originality or insight into truth might have helped to redeem the film despite these flaws.  But, alas, this one was disappointing down to the last, contrived and implausible, scene.
  • Amy:  The Reader, Japanese Story, and Summertime are three that standout in their badness.  There are bad movies which are flawed in one way or another (poor writing, bad acting, etc.) and then there are movies that are faulty on a deeper level; like people who are really smart that you enjoy being with as long as you don’t think about what they are actually saying.  These films would fall into the latter category.

Best Musical Experiences of the Year: 

  • Jim:  Wilco (The Album).  Jeff Tweedy & Co. have been making great music since the mid-90s, and their latest effort is more of the same.  2009 is also the year that I discovered the Kings of Leon.  Thanks to Jason Fortner for his insistent introduction to the beauty of the Followill brothers’ musical world.
  • Amy:  It isn’t a specific album but I loved my Christmas music this year. One of my faves included Sufjan Stevens Songs for Christmas, “What Child is This” by Andrea Bocelli, and Mary J. Blige and Emmylou Harris’ Light of the Stable.  They all strike the chords of awe, sadness, and rejoicing that I love about the season.

Favorite Songs of the Year:

  • Jim:  “Breathe” by U2.  This song slaps you in the face, spins you in circles, then sits you down and caresses you into ecstasy.  What begins as an almost tuneless rapid-fire narrative resolves into one of the most melodically satisfying songs in the U2 repertoire.  Check out that entrancing combo of cello and guitar as well as the memorable lyrical images—e.g., “people born of sound” wearing songs “like a crown” and “the roar that lies on the other side of silence.”  Oh yeah.
  • Amy:  See my comments above about Christmas songs.

Jim’s Favorite Sports Moment of the Year:  The season-long dominance of the Saints and Colts (two of my favorite teams), both of whom earned home field advantage throughout the NFL playoffs.  I’m not naïve enough to think both will make it to the Super Bowl (#1 seeds almost never meet in the championship).  But I’m hopeful that one of them will play on Super Sunday.

Jim’s Most Disappointing Sports Moment of the Year:  The Detroit Tigers’ squandering their division lead on the last day of regular season.  It wasn’t so much a moment as a week-long, fated collapse.  Ugh.

Amy’s Best Eating Experience of the Year:  New Orleans’ restaurant Mona Lisa’s eggplant parmesan.  Spicy marinara sauce, crispy eggplant in a creative setting with friendly folks.  And the service is great—at the Mona Lisa everyone is treated like a regular.

Amy’s Worst Eating Experience of the Year:  “Zucchini and Basil Soup.”  In an attempt to cleanse our bodies of toxins, Jim and I did a cleanse diet which excluded all cheese, eggs, wheat, soda, and basically anything you might enjoy eating.  The diet was actually not that bad, but this cold “soup” was definitely the low point.

Most and Least Satisfying Reads of the Year:

  • Jim:  Antony Flew’s There is a God, in which the former atheist chronicles his journey to belief in God and masterfully summarizes the three main considerations which prompted him to embrace theism.  I’ve also greatly enjoyed the Arts and Letters Daily blog.  My least satisfying read was Kwame Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism—an attempt to salvage shared moral values while affirming cultural relativism.  I kept waiting for an argument, but it never came.  And until the very end I hoped Appiah would rescue his project from incoherence.  My hopes were never realized.
  • Amy:  Elizabeth Gaskell’s Ruth, Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit and Same Kind of Different as Me were all inspiring.  They just don’t write them like that anymore.  I didn’t like The Girls from Ames.  Also, on three separate occasions, I began reading The Shack, but I couldn’t complete it.  Bad theology and even worse writing.

Political High Point of the Year:  Our hopeful sides want to celebrate the seemingly grass roots movement afoot in our country against government expansion and irresponsibility.  But our cynical sides tell us that it’s all just more talk that will, in the end, be undermined by profiteering.

Political Low Point of the Year:  The revelation that (now former) Green Czar Van Jones was a Marxist…or perhaps the revelation that (now former) White House communications director Anita Dunn was a Marxist sympathizer.  Or (speaking of Marxism?) perhaps the real low point was the health care bill.

Most Outrageous News Events of the Year:  The balloon boy hoax (what can you expect from a couple who would name their kid “Falcon”?) and Bernie Madoff (an appropriate surname, until the Ponzi schemer artist got busted) and climategate (when scientists feel they have to fudge numbers, this should give pause to even the most dogmatic believers in their theory).  Ah, the hits just keep on coming, don’t they?

Our Kids’ Most Memorable Statements of the Year:

Bailey:  “I think cussing is just adults’ way of whining.” 

Sam:  “Dad, just try to name a breakfast cereal I don’t like.”

Maggie:  “I think the wind is God whispering ‘I love you.’”

Andrew:  “I never want to get married, ‘cuz you have to kiss someone every day.”

Most Satisfying Shared Experiences of the Year: 

  • Jim:  Walking around the French Quarter together at the ETS conference in November.  Also, our August vacation in Houston with the incomparable Newcomb family. 
  • Amy:  Our various bike rides together as a family; also, seeing two of our kids become communicant members of our church and sharing the communion experience with them.

New Year’s Resolutions:

  • Jim:  To get to bed before midnight more than half of the time
  • Amy: To put Ranch Pringles behind me once and for all

Happy 2010 everyone!  And happy new decade as well!!

Posted on

Wolf at the Door

By Jim Spiegel

On Monday Anita Dunn stepped down from her position as White House communications director—the culmination of recent controversy over her remarks that Chairman Mao was one of her “favorite political philosophers.”  Two DUNNmonths ago, Obama’s so called “Green Jobs Czar,” Van Jones, resigned from his post following furor over his sympathies with Marxism.  Fox News, more particularly conservative JONEScommentator Glenn Beck, led the charge in exposing the Marxist stripes of these two Obama appointees.  And it has been interesting to observe how among other media sources more attention has been given to Fox’s “outing” of these two Marxist sympathizers than to the fact they were in the Obama administration in the first place. 

How many other Obama appointees have Marxist convictions?  And what are we to think of the President himself in light of this, especially given the fact that he has had numerous other Marxist associates throughout his career, including his early mentor, Frank Marshall Davis?

It wasn’t long ago that public figures avoided any linkage to Marxism, whether or not they actually subscribed to the principles of this foolish and oppressive ideology.  Even in the days of McCarthyism it was generally agreed that the Reds were evil.  The controversy concerned Joe McCarthy’s tactics, not his concern to root out communists from the U.S. Federal government.

It wasn’t long ago that nearly all U.S. citizens agreed that Marxism fundamentally opposes the American system of government and recognized that to the extent that socialist ideals are taken seriously by those in power our basic constitutional rights are threatened.  Indeed, the very fact that we have a Constitution which guarantees the freedoms it does seemed to be a reliable firewall against Marxist infiltration.

And it wasn’t long ago that the Marxist belief in the necessity of government force to institute a classless society seemed either innocuously ensconced in the pages of The Communist Manifesto or, practically speaking, restricted to distant lands from which we are safely buffered by both great oceans and great moral wisdom.

But things have changed, and a political destiny that was once so unthinkable in our country now seems a distinct possibility.  Fellow lambs of constitutional polity take note.  The Marxist wolf is at the door.

Posted on

Obama’s Fading Celebrity Factor

By Jim Spiegel

As President Obama has been taking heat for his economic policies and health care plan, his approval ratings have plummeted.  According to the most recent Rasmussen poll, Obama’s approval index rating has now dipped to -14, as compared to his +28 rating earlier in the year.  Whereas in January 65% approved of the job he was doing, now that number is at 48%.  This is a dramatic change of national opinion since Obama took office just seven short months ago.   But no one should be surprised at this.  As American politics has morphed into a celebrity show (even as celebrities have become politicians), this has changed many aspects of our political process.  And one of the more outstanding impacts is in the turbulence of public opinion regarding those who hold public office.

ObamaCelebrities, of course, are here one day and gone the next.  Today’s most popular singers and TV stars are quickly forgotten, even reviled as passé seemingly overnight.  Once a star isn’t “cool” anymore, he or she is dismissed.  Or if, like Ozzy Osbourne or Paris Hilton, they refuse to be dismissed, they become objects of public ridicule.  So when politicians leverage the entertainment world and take their campaigns to late night TV, effectively becoming celebrities themselves, it should not come as any shock if in a short period of time the public turns on them because, well, they’re just not “cool” anymore.  And because they cannot be so easily dismissed or forgotten, since they (usually) serve their full terms, they must suffer public ridicule—almost as a matter of course, notwithstanding the merits or demerits of their policies.

Long before the 2008 election I predicted Obama would win, if only because he was the more telegenic of the two candidates.  (Since 1960 the more telegenic candidate has won in every U.S. presidential election.  So much for substance when it comes to American presidential politics….) I also expected that the Obama “cool” factor would wear off early in his term so that his policies would have to stand or fall on their own merits.  Obama’s declining approval ratings and the furor over his health care plan have confirmed this.  It appears that from here on out very little will come easy for this president, amazingly despite the Democrat majority in both houses of Congress.  It will be interesting to see how he negotiates the rough road ahead when his celebrity currency of “cool” has all been spent.

Posted on

Our Economic Mess and Its Moral Implications

By Jim Spiegel

So we are in an economic crisis of historic proportions.  The Obama administration, following treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, is addressing the situation with massive spending.  Will the strategy work?  Only the most inveterate optimist would think so.  It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to recognize that you can’t spend money you don’t have in order to solve a financial problem.  Some pundits (including the likes of former Clinton operative Dick Morris) have suggested that Obama actually wants the plan to fail as a pretext for government takeover of the entire banking industry and the final step toward a socialist state.  That’s a rather cynical take on the situation, and I pray it’s not accurate.  But I’m afraid I can’t rule it out.

But aside from the question of cure—how to solve the mess we’re in—there is the question of cause:  How did we get here?  While there were certainly failures of government oversight, in the end it boils down to greed and irresponsibility—personal vice.  In other words, this national crisis, like most of our problems, is the result of immoral behavior.  And even the most ingenious government plan cannot fix the moral faults of the populous.  So what can fix America’s moral problems, whether they regard greed in the marketplace, marital infidelity, racism, sexism, abortion, or the evils of pornography?  Moral renewal is not something that can be legislated, programmed, or solved through education.  Ultimately, it’s a matter of the human heart, and this can only be addressed spiritually.  As critical as federal policy is, our current economic debacle is symptomatic of our deeper moral-spiritual crisis.  And until we reverse course in a moral-spiritual way, we won’t see any long-term economic cures.

Like many Christians, I believe only significant divine intervention can save us from ourselves.  But what form might this take?  Perhaps a revival within the church not unlike what happened during the Great Awakening in the eighteenth century.  Another possibility is the “no pain, no gain” model, where God allows us to “hit bottom” in order to motivate repentance and the moral seriousness we seem to have lost.  An extreme version of this was recently predicted by New York City pastor David Wilkerson who warned about a coming calamity (see his March 7 entry here: http://davidwilkersontoday.blogspot.com/).  According to Wilkerson, this is a straightforward case of divine wrath which we deserve because of our extreme rebellion as a nation.  Wilkerson’s announcement is particularly stunning because:  1) he’s not a kook or money-grubbing sensationalist but a humble and reasonable pastor who has demonstrated integrity for five decades of ministry and 2) his now famous predictions from the early 1970s were remarkably accurate—a fact that cannot be fully appreciated without seeing how unlikely his prognostications looked from the perspective of someone in the early 70s.

So will Wilkerson’s prophecy be fulfilled?  It’s scary to think so, but whether or not we believe him, the category of divine wrath should be taken seriously.  Our nation is in state of extreme moral-spiritual rebellion, and we are bound to pay the fiddler, whether this takes the form of natural consequences or special divine wrath.  We all need to consider how we can deepen our moral-spiritual commitment through personal repentance and more earnest pursuit of virtue.  Just as our national economic crisis is a product of many individual vices, national renewal can result from many individual virtues.

Posted on

A Strange Satisfaction

By Jim Spiegel

Congratulations to all you Obama supporters out there!  Your man is going to the White House.

Prior to the election I expected that I would have been thoroughly disappointed by this result.  But, strangely, I am not.  I strongly disagree with most of Obama’s policy positions—from his extreme pro-choice stance to his position on (re-)distributive justice—and am deeply concerned about his moral judgment, but as I watched Obama’s victory speech late Tuesday night I was surprised by what welled up inside of me—a peculiar feeling of satisfaction.  What?!  Yes, I was almost euphoric as I watched Obama and his family walk out on that stage in all of their meticulously choreographed political glory.  The historico-social significance of the moment suddenly fell on me in a way I hadn’t anticipated and—at least for those few minutes—I was glad he won.  But how can this be, when the thought of the implementation of his ideas makes me shudder?

Flashback 33 years…  When I was twelve-years-old my family moved from Detroit, Michigan to Jackson, Mississippi, where I began attending a private middle school.  At this school I got my first dose of hard-core Southern racism-unmitigated hatred of black Americans, complete with brutal jokes and frequent use of the N-word, not just by students but teachers as well.  This terrified me, since, well, I didn’t hate black people, and kids who became known as “N-lovers” faced certain persecution.  I couldn’t understand how people could hate other people just because of their skin color.  My mother had always warned me never to have such an attitude, and she even scolded me when one day I accidentally mispronounced the name of the African country “Niger.”

One day in my eighth-grade civics class my teacher, Mr. Knox, went on a rant about how “our country would be better if we sent all them n——–ers back to Africa.”  Something in my head clicked.  Even at thirteen I knew this was evil, and I silently resolved to try to be a friend, not a foe, to black folks.  And as the years passed I found myself doing this almost by reflex.  Later that year I went out of my way to befriend a black kid in my neighborhood, and two years later I got my first job at a Popeyes Fried Chicken restaurant in the middle of a black neighborhood, where a friend of mine and I were the only white employees.  We loved it and even enjoyed how our fellow workers referred to us as “Pixie” and “Dixie.”  I suppose this was our meager way of raging against the Southern white racist machine.  Not a big deal, really, but for us as young teenagers in that culture, it sure felt like a big deal. 

Years later, after my conversion, I found that I sometimes had to rebuke fellow Christians for their occasional racist comments.  Even during my college years in the mid-80s this was not uncommon.  And the typical response to my challenge was a condescending roll of the eyes or a verbal dismissal—“Oh come on, Spiegel.  Lighten up.”  This was exasperating, but by now I had the resources—biblically and philosophically, to challenge their foolishness.  Still, they didn’t listen.  (By the way, I don’t mean to suggest that all white Mississippians/Southerners were hard-core racists in those days.  But racism certainly was, and perhaps still is, more rampant in the South than in other areas of the country.)

Fast forward two decades, and there I am watching a black man give a victory speech, having just been elected President of the United States.  Suddenly I felt the same way those people in the crowd looked—euphoric and satisfied.  I heard a voice deep inside me say “Take that, Mr. Knox!” and “Take that, old college buddies!” I felt vindicated somehow.  But most of all I was happy for our country, that we had reached this milestone in our racial and ethnic struggle.  It’s not the end of that struggle of course, but it’s a hugely significant step.  And I can’t help but feel good about that aspect of Obama’s election.

Of course, the Obama presidency will be about much more than racial healing, and even in that domain it is far from a cure-all.  There are enormous challenges facing the next administration, and it will be interesting to see how much success, if any, Obama can have in dealing with the problems they will inherit, particularly since he will enjoy strong Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate.  For people like me who sharply disagree with Obama’s policies—we can at least give the man a chance.  And we can find some solace in the fact that our nation has taken a big step forward in its struggle with racism.