Monday morning's top news story will undoubtedly be the volume of cumulative sales generated by American Christmas shoppers this weekend, as financial analysts argue over whether or not it was "enough." But this year's "Black Friday" take-away story is undoubtedly the senseless death of a Wal-Mart employee in Valley Stream, NJ, who was trampled to death by an unruly mob of bargain hunters.
And those shoppers didn't just trample Jdimytai Damour to death; they continued to rush into the store, past his lifeless body, shoving paramedics out of the way until the agitated mob was finally pushed back by police. Then they fumed when authorities cleared the store and closed it down.
What does it say about us, when the value we place on cheap video games and DVD players overwhelms our ability to do even the simplest of decent things, to step back and allow paramedics to try to save an injured man's life?
It's easy to come up with a lengthy list of "-isms," to whose surface we can easily affix blame -- Americanism, capitalism, materialism, consumerism, racism, etc. But the root cause is far more complex, and dare I say, far more painful. Please consider this excellent analysis by The Anchoress:
I once actually saw two women quarrel over an item, just like in the
movies, while Christmas shopping. I was very young, and knew everything
at the time, so I blamed it on American materialism and its corruptive
influence on the soul. Materialism CAN corrupt the soul, of course - as
can capitalism untempered by compassion - but as I’ve matured, I’ve
come to reject the easy and cynical course that finds “America” and its
values to be at the core of every negative situation I encounter.
Instead, I have decided to think of the aggression of the battling
shoppers to be rooted in vulnerability. They’ve decided they want to
purchase a particular item for someone they love. Perhaps this is how
they express love. Perhaps they believe, subconsciously, that this is
the only way they can be loved back. Perhaps this is a budgeted item
and the only way they can afford to purchase it is at a heavily reduced
price and - because they love - they’re willing to fight for it.
Looked at in this way, the “crassness” of all of this consumer
excess seems less clear, and one finds oneself - as one does all too
often, if one is paying attention - in the middle of yet another Holy
Mystery. Love is the highest human aspiration, but when it lacks
anchoring in something bigger than itself, it tends to drift a bit and
take on some detritus (doubt, hurt, anger, self-hate) that gets into
the workings and distorts the navigation, a little; in that case,
suddenly love can lead us away from, and not toward, our best selves.
And then where are you? You’re tugging on a toy with another shopper
and sending all sorts of messages to your family and to the
world-at-large, that you never intended to send. About yourself and
your values, about your society, even about your nation.
There was an early episode of CSI, "Unfriendly Skies," that dealt with a similar ordeal. A passenger on a transcontinental flight is suffering from undiagnosed encephalitis, or swelling of the brain. This causes extreme discomfort and eventually leads to psychotic behavior. A group of five fellow passengers fears for their lives, and what begins as an attempt to restrain the victim soon escalates into a violent attack that leaves the man dead.
Although this fictional story dealt with a much more serious issue (the taking of a life in order to subdue an unknown threat and thus save one's own life) the underlying premise is the same one faced by the mob of Wal-Mart shoppers --to what extent do we ignore our conscience in order to get what we want, particularly in a situation where we assume (or dictate) that responsibility is "shared," and therefore we are somehow allowed to abdicate our normal moral boundaries?
In fact, another essay linked by The Anchoress in an earlier post noted that those who commit or inspire the greatest acts of evil (think Cromwell or Robespierre or Mugabe or Hitler) often do so because they ultimately desire to accomplish something good (religious freedom, or equality, or security). To satisfy this end, evil often masquerades as morality, imparting heavy doses of guilt and conviction to those who are judged to be less than fully committed to "the new way".
I'm sure that most of the people in that out-of-control Wal-Mart mob love other people greatly -- parents, children, neighbors, family -- and would make great sacrifices in order to impart happiness, even shallow, fleeting happiness, upon their loved ones. Yet as we have seen, even these people are capable of commiting great evil through the disordered way in which they attempted to achieve a good end. That disorder led to the death of an innocent man. The Wal-Mart incident is simply a local representation of a global problem; a problem, I believe, that is beyond the capabiliy of mankind to solve on its own.
Conservative blogs are going wild over an excerpt from a 2001 interview with Barack Obama that was originally broadcast on Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ. Here is what Obama says that is so stunning:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights
movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it
succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.
So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit
at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be
okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of
redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political
and economic justice in this society.
And uh, to that
extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren
Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential
constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court
interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to
you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t
say what the federal government or the state government must do on your
behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the
tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights
movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency
to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities
on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of
power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some
ways we still suffer from that. (emphasis added)
My first reaction when I read this quote this morning was simply, "Okay, now we know what the Obama "litmus test" for Supreme Court justice nominees will be."
Sure, Obama says that the Court itself cannot specifically order the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. That would be unconstitutional. But the
massive power grabs that Congress must necessarily impose in order to
make socialism a reality here in the USA will certainly generate
numerous individual lawsuits challenging their constitutionality.
Just as FDR packed the Supreme Court with sympathetic justices
in order to legitimize the Constitutionality of the New Deal, so must
Barack Obama pack his Supreme Court with socialist justices, in order
to legitimize his redistribution plans. Someone has to keep discovering and defending those emanations and penumbras.
I also believe that any appellate court justice
who embraces the notion of "social justice" through the government-enforced redistribution
of wealth would, almost without exception, support
government-sanctioned abortion on demand. Therefore the abortion
"litmus test" is redundant and can probably be ignored. This will be to
Obama's advantage, as it could make his appointees more palatable to
the Religious Right.
What Obama actually seems to be advocating is a rebirth of the Poor People's Campaign,
which was about to be undertaken by Martin Luther King, Jr. at the time
of his assassination. The PPC was focused on the plight of all
poor Americans, regardless of race or geographic location. King's plans
included a demand for an "Economic Bill of Rights" that, among other
things, guaranteed a living wage-based permanent income for the poor.
You should also recall that Dr. King unapologetically supported government-sanctioned wealth redistribution
and himself wrote, "good and just society is neither the thesis of
capitalism nor the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious
democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and
collectivism."
MLK is considered a modern-day prophet. Could Obama's embrace of MLK's ultimate fight be the deed that elevates Obama to the level of modern-day Messiah?
In America, we have a Constitution that was written by a group of men
whose lives had been deeply affected by persecution at the hands of
various government and religious groups. The men who wrote the
Constitution wanted to make sure that future generations did not suffer from persecution as they had. That's why they wrote the Constitution in a way that stressed the limits of the government. They wanted to ensure that the government of the United States never directly interfered with the ability of its individual citizens to fully enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Has America been perfect in this regard? Of course not. Our economy has occasionally been overtaken by robber-barons. Our citizens once held slaves. Local and state governments used denial of the franchise as a powerful political weapon. Our Federal government stood by while its citizens faced discrimination and persecution. And in some cases, the government led that persecution. But even for all our failings, the principle of freedom for the individual has never been abolished.
But Barack Obama wants to change that. To Obama, the failure of the Supreme Court to eliminate the limiting character of the Constitution is a tragedy! Obama wants a Constitution that empowers the government, rather than limiting it. He wants a Constitution that gives the Federal Government a mandate to guarantee financial equity and equality of outcome for all Americans, presumably with an unlimited scope of power in order to be able to enforce that mandate. And he believes that such a Constitution is the only hope for the collective salvation of our nation.
This is, in short, the most radical vision for "reinventing government" ever articulated by a major (and currently leading) Presidential candidate. And it scares the living hell out of me.
But Mike, if you're really a Christian, don't you want to see hunger and hopelessness abolished? Don't you want to see an end to the suffering of the working poor? Don't you want to see everyone have a fair chance?
Absolutely. And I have been involved in Christian social justice efforts here in Oklahoma City for about two years now. I have even attended community organizing meetings. But I would like to see true change, brought about by spiritual revival and the work of the Holy Spirit, not government mandates. Because such mandates will give the Federal Government an incredibly dangerous amount of power over our bank accounts, our income, and our private lives. And trust me, it will be used to punish those who don't toe the party line -- regardless of what party is in control. That kind of a power grab by the Federal Government is not a manifestation of "holiness," nor is it "justice," nor will it increase freedom or security for anyone. We don't need it and I don't want it. Period.
ADDED: If you want to understand the dangers of giving government absolute power to enforce its own definition of "fairness," then you should watch this disturbing video, part of a 1982 documentary on the Weather Underground -- the group co-founded and led by Barack Obama's mentor Bill Ayers -- entitled No Place To Hide:
It features former FBI informant Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated
the Weather Underground and helped law enforcement put an end to their terrorist activities. Grathwohl's tips stopped several attempted bombing attacks by
the group. In the video, Grathwohl describes a high-level group meeting held by the group to discuss the logistics of the American People's Revolution that they were attempting to lead:
I brought up the subject of what’s going to happen after we take
over the government. You know, “we” become responsible then for
administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics, how you are going to clothe and feed these people.
The only thing that I could get was that they expected the Cubans
and the North Vietnamese and the Chinese and the Russians would all
want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also
believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect
against what they called “the counter-revolution.”
… I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t
reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d
have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”
Twenty-five million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of
which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known
educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the
elimination of 25 million people.
And they were dead serious. (Emphasis added)
Liberals often accuse conservatives of being paranoid, suffering from delusions of Red Army bogeymen swooping down on America and locking everyone away in concentration camps. But we aren't making this stuff up. It has been discussed at the highest levels of academia and in all the major camps of the progressive movement. Does it not frighten you that a group of domestic terrorists, led by Ivy League-educated elites, sat around coldly planning the murder of 1 out of every 10 Americans for none other than purely political reasons? Does it not frighten you that the leader of that group mentored our current leading Presidential candidate? Does it not frighten you that government records were searched for evidence to discredit and destroy an ordinary citizen who dared to challenge that Presidential candidate? Does it not frighten you that the previous Democratic presidential candidate believes that the Communist reeducation camps set up in Vietnam were no big deal, because the former inmates of those camps are now "thriving?"
Maybe we'll end up like Sweden, with suffocating government control over education, career choices, employment opportunities, salaries, benefits, profit levels, and retirements, yet without the need for a secret police force, or armed troops in the streets, or "reeducation" camps. Maybe. But the truth is that the progressive intellectual and moral "brights" who walk the marble halls of our finest universities and political institutions seem to have no problem with "social justice" in America at any price, even the intimidation, imprisonment, and death of anyone who dares to oppose their vision of Utopia. If that's how we must achieve a "better America," then God help us all.
The House of Representatives passed an amended version of the "bailout" bill on Friday -- a bill that is now over 450 pages in length (as opposed to three pages when it was first presented by the Treasury Secretary) and includes a staggering $100 billion+ in targeted special-interest tax breaks and pork barrel spending.
As I said before, this bill is our 9% confidence Congress at its worst. It gives Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, whose monumental misjudgments in part kept us from addressing the problem sooner, an unprecedented amount of unchecked power. There are compelling arguments why it could fail spectacularly, just like Hoover's depression-proofing plans did in 1930. And really -- if we are on the brink of disaster, how in God's name can we afford all this new government spending? My feeling, obviously, is that we are not at the brink of disaster, and that the current crisis was manufactured -- after years of Democrat stalling and opposing any measure that would reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- solely to justify the biggest government power grab in my lifetime.
And again following what I wrote in an earlier blog post, the bill still completely fails to address the underlying cause of the problem -- the ever-increasing number of loans that banks were forced to make to un-creditworthy borrowers. But in an effort to sugar-coat that critical defect, the "bailout" bill increased the FDIC insurance limit on bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000, and was further amended to include a mandate requiring health insurance coverage "parity" between psychotherapy and treatment of mental disorders, and physical therapy and treatment of physical disorders. Neither of these things are bad (they are both good, actually) but they do not make up for this fundamental shortcoming.
Actually,
the thinking behind the push for "parity" and the now-questionable
decades-long push to extend mortgages to "underserved" groups seems
eerily parallel: 1) Stodgy/greedy old bankers say they can't afford to lend to minorities who don't meet traditional mortgage criteria. But we have a noble social goal to fulfill and we know they're wrong! ... 2) Stodgy/greedy
old health plan administrators say they can't afford to cover
hard-to-diagnose mental problems (e.g., anxiety) and substance abuse to
the same extent that they cover easy-to-diagnose physical problems. But
we have a noble social goal and ....
The article, written by Steve Malanga, to which Kaus links with respect to the "noble social goal" of loans for low income and minority borrowers, is so good that I'm going to excerpt it at length:
In the early 1990s I attended a conference designed to teach
journalists the tools of an emerging field known as computer-assisted
investigative reporting. One of the hottest sessions of the conference
explained how journalists could replicate stories that other papers had
done locally using computer tools, including one especially popular
project to determine if banks in your community were discriminating
against minority borrowers in making mortgages. One newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, had already won a Pulitzer Prize for its computer-assisted series on the subject, and others, including the Washington Post and the Detroit Free Press,
had also weighed in with their own analysis based on government loan
data. Everyone sounded keen to learn if their local banks were guilty,
too.
Although academic researchers leveled substantial criticisms against
these newspaper efforts (namely, that they relied on incomplete data
and did not take into account lower savings rates, higher debt levels,
and higher loan defaults rates for many minority borrowers), bank
lending to minority borrowers still became an enormous issue—mostly
because newspaper reporters and editors in this pre-talk radio,
pre-blogging era were determined to make it so. Editorialists called
for the government to force banks to end the alleged discrimination,
and they castigated federal banking regulators who said they saw no
proof of wrongdoing in the data.
... One economist for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. who looked
more deeply into the data, for instance, found that the difference in
denial rates on loans for whites and minorities could be accounted for
by such factors as higher rates of delinquencies on prior loans for
minorities, or the inability of lenders to verify information provided
to them by some minority applicants.
Ignoring the import of such data, federal officials went on a
campaign to encourage banks to lower their lending standards in order
to make more minority loans. One result of this campaign is a
remarkable document produced by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in
1998 titled “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending”.
Quoting from a study which declared that “underwriting
guidelines…may be unintentionally racially biased,” the Boston Fed then
called for what amounted to undermining many of the lending criteria
that banks had used for decades. It told banks they should consider
junking the industry’s traditional debt-to-income ratio, which lenders
used to determine whether an applicant’s income was sufficient to cover
housing costs plus loan payments. It instructed banks that an
applicant’s “lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative
factor” in obtaining a mortgage, even though a mortgage is the biggest
financial obligation most individuals will undertake in life. In cases
where applicants had bad credit (as opposed to no credit), the Boston
Fed told banks to “consider extenuating circumstances” that might still
make the borrower creditworthy. When applicants didn’t have enough
savings to make a down payment, the Boston Fed urged banks to allow
loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward
a down payment, even though banks had traditionally disallowed such
sources because applicants who have little of their own savings
invested in a home are more likely to walk away from a loan when they
have trouble paying. (emphasis added)
Of course, the new federal standards couldn’t just apply to
minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so
could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, in other words, these
became the new standards in the industry. [Perhaps this is where one could make the case for corporate greed among lending institutions and bond traders. -ed] In 1999, the New York Times
reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were easing credit
requirements for mortgages it purchased from lenders, and as the
housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a
vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the
biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants,
white and minority, and most of these loans were based on the lending
standards promoted by the government.
Meanwhile, those who raced to make these mortgages were lionized.
Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies even invited
Angelo Mozilo, CEO of the lender which made more loans purchased by
Fannie and Freddie than anyone else, Countrywide Financial, to give its
prestigious 2003 Dunlop Lecture on the subject of "The American Dream
of Homeownership: From Cliché to Mission.” A brief, innocuous
description of the event still exists online here.
Of course Mozilo is now the disgraced former CEO of Countrywide, who resigned after it was discovered that he not only massaged his company's books in order to pay himself and his cronies undeserved bonuses, but he also gave sweetheart mortgage deals to influential members of Congress.
The hero worship of Mozilo reminded me of the way that Franklin Raines, former OMB director under Bill Clinton and former CEO of Fannie Mae, was praised for his "outstanding leadership" by Rep. Maxine Waters in 2004. The criterion for her lavish compliment? "The GSE's have exceeded their housing goals." Apparently it didn't matter one whit to Rep. Waters that Raines' accounting shenanigans caused Fannie Mae to eat nearly $10 billion, or that he received at least $50 million in undeserved bonuses -- none of which has he ever offered to pay back, or give to his precious struggling low-income mortgage-holders.
Unfortunately, such irresponsibility is often part of the whirlwind of populism that accompanies broad-based "we're helping the little guy and sticking it to the system and everyone knows we're doing the right thing" policy efforts. And in the case of loans for minorities and low-income borrowers, a crusade against "racial discrimination" became the primary motivator. And no one -- NO ONE -- dares to challenge a crusade against "racial discrimination" because any such challenge would be labeled a de facto case of racism. Because if you want a career as a civic leader or politician, or if you want your business to be successful or have a non-adversarial relationship with the government, then you will avoid being smeared as a racist at all costs, even if it means the abdication of common sense.
So far, only one Democrat has admitted his party's failure to objectively study the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And characteristically, the Democrat leadership has announced, in completely unambiguous terms, that they bear absolutely no responsibility for the current banking mess. Their willingness to lie about this issue is surpassed perhaps only by the willingness of Republicans to say anything or sign anything in order to avoid being labeled as "racists."
And guess who's left paying the bill? That's right -- us. The American taxpayer. We will pay for it through outright taxation. We will pay for it through higher mortgage fees, higher interest rates, and less available credit. And really -- is anyone expecting this $700 billion to actually "fix" the problem? Of course not. This bill only sets a precedent for request after request after request for bailouts to come. Joe Biden is already talking about giving courts the power to reset the principal amount for mortgage loans. What kind of financial insanity will be next?
Elizabeth Scalia, "The Anchoress," is by far my favorite Christian blogger. Over the past few weeks, she has been praying and fasting. Really doing it. Really. She had this to say a few days ago:
My prayer is not for victory. It is for the
very best outcome for the country, and for God’s will to be done. Our
ways are not God’s way, nor our minds God’s mind. To us, the “best”
outcome might seem obvious, but really, when you think about it, when
does God ever do the “obvious” thing?
... I’m thinking we’re in the middle of a mystery, that this whole, odd,
unpredictable and too-long election season has been run along one of
those threads connecting things seen and unseen, and we are so
disoriented today that we do not really know which outcome is the
outcome pleasing to God, and meant - by Him - to draw us into Himself.
The Holy Spirit, of course, uses whatever He chooses, to bring
things about. Who knows if we are meant to be shaken, soundly, in order
to be roused from our complacency and the status quo?
The sense I have is that the status quo won’t do any longer. That we
are stagnant, too deeply comfortable in too much of the muck and mud of
materialism, and we’ve lost sight of what and who we are meant to cling
to.
So, let us not worry. Let us not wring our hands. For the Christian,
anyway, I believe we are in a moment where the rubber meets the road.
How do you respond to that? With trust that no matter what things seem
like, that “all things work for good and to the Glory of God” or with wringing hands, depression and doubt?
If you are doubting…if you are thinking that only electoral victory
- as defined by the world - will be a validation of either the
existence of God, or His Intent, then you need to hunker down into
scripture and get out of your own head. Do you believe that Christ is
the Son of God, or do you not? If you do, do you really think that this
election is all there is, and that a loss here is somehow static, and
works to nothing in God’s purpose?
To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under the heaven.
You either believe that, or you don’t.
“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
You either believe it, or you don’t.
But if you’re calling yourself a Christian, and you’re not believing it, then question what you say you believe.
I'm going to close this post by saying that over the last few months, God has been steadily dealing with me over the subjects of materialism and money. Without going into a lot of details, my immediate future contains a disturbing amount of uncertainty, and like all of us, my first reaction is to worry obsessively over how all the bills are going to get paid. I don't solicit prayers for myself very often on this blog (perhaps I should do it more often!) but the events of the past week have made it abundantly clear to me that my previous faith in financial systems and markets and government was grievously misplaced. Please don't misunderstand -- I'm not giving up on hard work or sound investing, or throwing everything I have to the wind and hoping for some far-out miracle. But now I realize how much I should have been trusting God rather than relying on my own skill and luck. Please pray for a spiritual transformation that gives me the strength to place everything in God's hands first.
Now a little commentary. First off, things ain't what they used to be. Democrats of yore could simply tell everyone how bad things were and then hide in the shadow of FDR as they proposed big government spending programs that would surely "stimulate" the economy, just as FDR saved us from the ravages of the Great Depression. But things aren't so simple today. After repeatedly blasting President Bush over a growing budget deficit, it is difficult for Democrats to propose huge immediate spending increases with no way to "pay" for them. And after the truly lackluster performance of the Democratic congressional leadership last year, there are a lot of Democratic constituents and special interest groups who are going to be demanding quite a bit more than a "fair share" of the Congressional pork spread this year. Decisions, decisions.
Compared to previous years (e.g. 1980, 13.6% inflation, or 1982, 9.7% unemployment), our current economic situation is not so bad. Twenty five years ago we were so used to double-digit inflation,
double-digit unemployment in large cities, and 18% mortgage interest
rates, many people simply gave up and settled on the notion that things
would never be any better. But we have been used to "good news" for so long now that any change in those trends causes people to panic.
I believe that we are headed into an economic slowdown. High gasoline prices have finally impacted clothing and food prices. The price of oil has kept the cost of gasoline, diesel fuel, and other petroleum derivatives at record high levels. And the meltdown of the housing and mortgage bubble will cause banks to be very cautious (read: stingy) in their lending. All of these things will hurt us in 2008, but their effect will not come close to the misery of 25 to 30 years ago.
Obama's Farrakhan Test - Richard Cohen from The Washington Post asks tough questions about Barak Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. I mentioned this uncomfortable subject in a blog post nearly a year ago.
General: Anbar Ready For Handover - "Iraq's western province of Anbar, hotbed of the Sunni Arab insurgency
for the first four years of the war, will be returned to Iraqi control
in March, a senior U.S. general said Thursday."
Recent Comments