Astonishing cynicism, or a way to insight?  Bear in mind Buttrick wrote right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a world war had darkened things already for many years (consider the Asian and African experiences, not just the period between 7DEC41 and VJ Day).  And he focused his discussion on the dilemma of our ignorance, our inability to generate Light for life.

Of the demagoguery he mentions there are examples held fast in memory, the “Kingfish” Huey Long of Louisiana who was murdered at the capitol in Baton Rouge in 1935.  Without forgetting his populist devotion to Louisianans, I associate Long’s remarkable saga with Sinclair Lewis’ fascistic Berzilius “Buzz” Windrip in It Can’t Happen Here (1935).  “Berzilius” rings as “Beelzebub” in my ears; but, well, it was a satire, though with plenty of American referents.  Others have suggested other loose parallels — among the worst Hitler comes to mind.

It is not that people are “bad” or that they choose demagogues – and what American politicians can rise to the top unless they can “draw the people together” unto themselves to some degree?  No, “bad” doesn’t get it.  Says Buttrick, our known burden of ignorance pales before the “worse burden and deeper need” – that we are wicked.  We know that, too, and mostly deny it.  Though in admitting it we cannot help ourselves, we need a deliverer.  A demagogue?  No, but someone who can also take our mortality to task and assure us of Life.  So, Buttrick ended his chapter on these themes this way:

• Man is constitutionally ignorant, endemically wicked, irrevocably mortal; but he knows it, and is therefore above his ignorance, sin, and mortality; yet he is not delivered from his lower life by his own power, but remains helpless without the Great Companion.
• There is no book logic to uphold, or refute, these contentions.  There is only the logic of life: the reader must ask himself if this description of the paradox of human nature is true or untrue of his human nature.
• If he finds any truth in the description, he may be willing to ask further if the new-old words of the creed have an answering truth:  “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, . . . and was made man.”  (from the Nicene Creed)

The marvelous journalistic media assure we shall have our daily presentist mixed doses of shock and surprise, banality and the constant insistence that so much of what we see and hear is entirely new, unprecedented, even revolutionary.

How American!

Need a new way to lambaste a candidate who is too: old, young, verbose, close-mouthed, tall, short, liberal, conservative, inexperienced, connected, religious, irreligious . . . ? Those descriptors immediately call to mind: Reagan, Kennedy, Stevenson, Coolidge, Lincoln, Douglas, Clinton, Goldwater, Obama, Hayes, Wilson, Roosevelt . . . . Why, when RR ran in 1980 one would have thought some people expected a state funeral not long after inauguration — that is, IF the poor old guy lived long enough. (Hear the echoes directed toward McCain). There is always something to make fun of, either just for fun, or with sincere malicious intent.

So, what about the Paris Hilton thing this week? Fun, obviously. But what is so new about celebrities weighing in either to poke fun, or to soberly advocate the merits of their favored candidate? Nothing new there, not in all the history of American politics.

But it’s not fun for John McCain, really. What a challenge is laid before him! Consider the candidates and the varied, sometimes secondary, characteristics that influence voters. Who’s more entertaining? Who’s a better cheerleader? Who exudes youth and virility? Who shows confidence borne of experience?  Who’s the better debater (wouldn’t we like to know . . . )? Who’s more experienced overall (whoops, probably should be in another list)? Who better represents the U.S.A. demographically, attitudinally, and ideologically (are there some great debating points here)? Whom should we expect to work better with our multicultural America (an unfair question, or quite apt?)? Who would work better with the Congress? Who would help our international image and acceptability (don’t even suggest that’s not important!)?

No, John McCain is no rock star, no “celebrity” as we understand the word. But neither is Barack Obama, though I get the feeling many Americans deep down want a celebrity president — at least someone with the substance, respectability, depth, and character to make us feel better about our top leadership. With that celebrity they want some substance, a strong, respectable image, and confidence.

I think the more important features in that list are in reach both for McCain and Obama. I think we should demand those things. We don’t want celebrities, we want statesmen-leaders. We shall see what we get.

Let’s not forget: McCain and Obama are senators. That fact merits more discussion than it has gotten recently. Yes, McCain has been a senator longer, and the quality of that experience, its depth, is something we need to consider. Most Americans will not dwell on it though. One question dominates: how did these men become senators in the first place? Did they just throw their names in the hat? An appreciable electorate made them senators, no doubt trusting (hoping mightily?) that in the short and long terms they would do some good for their constituencies. That’s nothing to disparage.

Let’s remember, too, that the presidency is at best a humble office. At best it requires greatness in (so far) a man, and the American electorate does not long reward someone who makes us look bad (well, there is the Twenty-second Amendment for extra protection in that case, or even for more expressly partisan purposes, if you will). The comedians and humorists, and Paris Hilton, have a point, even as their jokes and poking fun acknowledge the power of celebrity in our culture. Yes, celebrity attracts us. But there is another side to the matter. A presidential candidate should not try to be God’s best gift to humankind.

Yet at the end of the day we want the kind of confidence, the sense of support, that assures us there are strong, principled, constant persons backing up our lifestyles, our dreams, our goals, and our efforts. These are considerations not entirely determined by age and experience, purpose and motivation, attitude and character. But these things are important. They are akin to the support we appreciate from the folk we value in our lives — those we can always count on to encourage us and to help us in times of trouble — like family elders, brothers and sisters, ministers and priests, coaches, teachers. These are the very qualities we expect from our civil servants from the local to national levels. At best we also expect that of ourselves in our civic and community service (we need to remember that!).

What do we need in a president? Paris Hilton cannot tell us, no, not really — that’s a media-commodity-entertainment thing. We need a president who evokes his commonality with us in our common life, who works to assure that security and liberty are maintained, who knows what makes a nation great in the community of nations and seeks to enhance that community, and who listens well.

I wish we had stronger candidates. Honestly, I cannot think of any presidential campaign, ever, when someone would not have said just that. But there is a truism not always fulfilled in American presidential history. The men have generally risen to the demands of the office. Some have fallen short. A few have succeeded beyond all human expectation. I am more sanguine about such prospects for McCain and Obama, but as always we shall have to wait, and see. For example, a key mark of competence and wisdom consists in the qualities of those cabinet, staff, and agency servants whom our presidents choose to help them advance their responsibilities in office. That has not always been well done.

One more thing: shouldn’t we be taking a look at the composition of our Congress for the next few years? Ponder the argument that the Congress actually is more important when we want to get things done. But that’s another discussion.

Don’t take me because I am faithful,

Don’t take me because I am kind.

If your heart settles on me, I’m for the taking;

Take me for longing or leave me behind.

Along with yet beyond all the reason, the negotiating, the policy statements, and the eventual platform, many American voters settle on a matter of the heart, a voting decision that allows them to leave the polls with hope and satisfaction: “I have made my best choice today.” Though it seems in recent presidential elections there have been no earnestly tantalizing choices, one could argue that few elections since 1800 have met that measure.

A brief word only about the delegate selection process, and I speculate: the Democrats could do worse for themselves than to risk anything like the grindingly close popular and electoral and judicial decisions of 2000 and 2004. Does choosing Barack over Hilary reduce that risk?

Take me for longing, or leave me behind.

Which candidate fits that bill?

This past weekend our board president received, in absentia, a token, a totem of unity and patriotism, a gift in honor of his own military service, patriotism, and love of the United States and what our nation best represents, a ceremonial working/battle axe. It was also in honor of his sons, one of whom, a Marine lieutenant, still is recovering from burn injuries received in Iraq from a roadside bomb that killed most of his brothers-in-arms. Those injuries will force his retirement, which he must accept, though reluctantly, and earlier than he wished.

The giver? An elder representing the Citizen Pottawatomie tribe of Oklahoma. The recipient and his son? Members via Mexican ancestry, in part, of the Yaqui tribe. Yet all are citizens of the United States, heirs to a tradition of patriotism based not in what some consider a threatening militarism but in their convictions that they can best serve their country as members of a proud, distinguished service branch of the American Armed Forces. And these Marines have served well.

The United States includes many amazing people, humans whose backgrounds, convictions, and accomplishments can only evoke encouragement and admiration. I learned this past weekend about the long tradition of military service among the Cheyenne of the Middle and Northern Plains. Where in the social histories do we learn that the Indians are more than just a formerly oppressed group? Where do we learn that among them, always, have been individuals and groups who transcended the difficulties of accommodation and integration to the larger Anglo-European society, who came to share fully in it, yet who, paradoxically, retained their traditions as best they could? I am interested to learn more about the American Plains warriors whose love of country is a lesson for all Americans — not to glorify war, though some surely might, but to be reminded that in a world where wars will occur, there are patriots whose best response is to take part.

~ On the other hand, experience being sometimes the harsh teacher, and costly, we now know that the diplomatic conceptions, skills, experience, and policies of the United States of America have needed revisions and revamping for some time. The world has changed, and it has not changed in our favor. Neither does the rest of the world seem as much interested to assure the continuing health and happiness of the United States as in the past. To be sure, we do have cultural and economic allies who are vitally concerned about our health, our image, and our conduct as these factors affect them heavily.

~ How interesting: Those nations with whom we most needed stronger diplomatic relations four years ago are in at least two prominent cases the same ones with whom we have more serious diplomatic problems today. I am referring to Iran and Syria. And can we say that our diplomatic position has been improved on the European continent? Quite the contrary.

~ The United States will respond, eventually, to such needs as seem most crucial. Whether that includes building a more responsive and knowledgeable diplomatic system is the question. That kind of endeavor requires much funding, preparation, and development, but it is not as if we are prostrated diplomatically today; we simply need to refocus our energies, take advantage of existing resources, and develop others. Our diplomacy also needs the benefit of a revised attitude about the functions of diplomacy in a globalized world, a world in which older conceptions, such as those current in the Cold War, will not work, and in which the US is increasingly recognized as a favorable partner with any nation whose needs we can help to meet.

~ The hole we are digging (folks in the media are talking about the deepening hole of Iraq) seems indeed to be “deeper than originally specified.” So, too, our commitment, being necessarily “deeper than . . . .” And so, too, for the Iraqis, it seems, regardless of their positions. The diplomacy of the United States of America also needs to be “deeper (and broader) than originally specified.” Intelligence and counterintelligence measures have developed a lot in the last few years, but they cannot take the place of wise diplomacy. I wonder whether the American citizens are ready to go deeper. We have a long-standing history and tradition of isolationism that has been pervasive in spite of our considerable and growing enmeshment with the world. Our enmeshment amid globalization is unprecedented, and yet we seem surprised that (1) it should be hard to get along with other nations, and, (2) so many nations find it so hard to get along with us–they don’t like us in many instances. Know my bias: I know it is useful to be more informed, historically, geographically, politically, culturally, and experientially — at the least one’s basis for studying, discussing, and working out compelling matters internationally is stronger with such knowledge and the understanding that comes from it. It is, indeed, a matter of wanting to go “deeper than originally specified,” so to speak, in our engagement with the world, hopefully as servants, too, who do our best for ourselves as well as others by serving.

~ Speaking of servants: the present “dogpiling” of critics on President Jimmy Carter over his most recent book is a reminder (from the 1970s) of how being downright nice personally is no substitute for indecision and ineptitude, qualities, er, deficiencies shown painfully during the Carter administration (a Democratic administration, mind you, but one often at legislative odds with the Congress) in dealing with an old nemesis nation called Iran. Yes, that Iran, that under the Khomeini-led revolution held over 300 Americans as hostages for more than a year, and against which the US sent a Marine helicopter raid that ended in catastrophe in the Iranian desert. By the way, I think some people need to read his book carefully before they presume to condemn it — yes, I need to read it, too. Perhaps the clearest indication of a problem with the book is the response (resignation) of Dr. Kenneth Stein from his associations with the Carter Center in Atlanta. (I think Carter’s better qualities and examples of Christian action are too readily misunderstood or condemned by too many people, including “conservative” Christians; how can I know their reasons for it? To be sure, former President Carter does take a more activistic approach to international problems, and with a bit too much equanimity to suit some folks. Trouble is, I think I saw some of that in Jesus of Nazareth once or twice, and it changed the way I read and understood the Gospels’ accounts. Another hypothesis: Carter has written and published enough over the years and recently to present a renewed, desirable target for his critics!)